Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

ESTATE DUTY

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (France) Order, 1963, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

STATISTICS OF TRADE

The VICE-CHAMBERLIAN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order, 1963, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

MALAYA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a Speaker's Chair to the Malayan House of Representatives, and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same

It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Education Branch (Specialisation Scheme)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will now make a statement about extending the specialisation scheme in the education branch of the Royal Air Force so as to include more arts graduates.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Hugh Fraser): The scheme is being extended to include arts graduates and the first officers will be selected in the next few weeks.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that that statement will be most welcome to arts graduates in the education branch, and if he will appreciate that I am not being ungrateful when I ask if he is also aware that there will still be a considerable number of squadron leaders in that branch who will be very disappointed that their prospects of promotion have turned out to be nothing like as good as they were led to expect when they originally joined?

Mr. Fraser: I thank my hon. Friend.

Pensions

Mr. Wade: asked the Secretary of State for Air how much pension would be received today by a 14-year-old orphaned child of a squadron leader who retired on the 1956 Code after maximum service, if both parents had died on 3rd November, 1958; and how much it would be if the parents had died the next day.

Mr. H. Fraser: £65 a year and £162 a year respectively.

Mr. Wade: Is it not very odd that a child who lost his parents before 4th November, 1958, should receive only £65 a year, whereas a child whose parents died on the day after that receives nearly three times as much, although in each case the father retired on the same day, with the same rank, and after the same length of service? Is not this an extraordinary anomaly which it is impossible to justify?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. It has been justified for many years, and we are all well aware of the problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has these matters under consideration and I cannot add more to the matter.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how much pension, other than her own pension, would be received today by the 55-year-old widow of an air marshal who lost her husband on 3rd November, 1958, for one child; and how much would she receive for the child if her husband died the next day, assuming in both cases that her husband had retired after maximum service on the 1956 code.

Mr. H. Fraser: £41 9s. 0d. a year and £207 2s. 0d. a year respectively.

Mr. Johnson: Does not that reply reveal an even more intolerable state of affairs than did his reply to the Question put by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade)? In this case one widow receives five times as much for her child, for one day's difference. Does not this illustrate the iniquity of the whole doctrine of the immutability of Service pensions? Does my hon. Friend further realise that it is simply not good enough to tell us that the Minister of Defence is considering these things? Will he tell the House what discussions he has had with the other Service Ministers about this matter? Does he realise that Service pensioners and their dependants, and the widows and children of ex-Service men, must be treated fairly and differently? It is wholly iniquitous to continue like this.

Mr. Fraser: As I told the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), and I now tell my hon. Friend, of course I am aware of this problem, as is the whole House. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is looking into it, and in this he has my full support.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has not answered my Question? He has not told us what discussions he is having with the Minister of Defence. What is being done about it, beyond the fact the Minister of Defence is considering it?

Mr. Fraser: I have nothing to add to what I have said. As for discussions

with my right hon. Friend, of course I have discussions with him on many subjects, but it would not be proper to reveal them to the House of Commons.

Service Men (Indulgence Passages)

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will ensure that all Service men who are afforded indulgence passages home on Royal Air Force aircraft are guaranteed a return flight to base without charge.

Mr. H. Fraser: No, Sir. Service men returning to duty overseas are given priority when there is spare capacity in a Royal Air Force aircraft. But an indulgence passage is a privilege which can only be granted when such spare capacity is available.

Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, first, whether records are kept of these indulgence flights and how often Service men take advantage of them? Secondly, although Service men are informed that if there are no vacancies on returning Service aircraft they will have to pay their own return fares back to base, they treat this rather lightheartedly, and when they are due to return to Middle East or Far East stations and are informed that there are no vacancies on Service aircraft and therefore they have to pay between £50 and £100 to get back, this causes distress to them and often to their families? Even if it means that there will be a curtailment of some of these indulgence passages, is it not worth considering the suggestion made in my Question?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have looked at this very carefully. When there is a free seat available in an aircraft it is much better that someone should have the benefit of using it, and it is made clear that if there is no chance of getting back free the man will have to pay his fare. This is quite separate from the normal overseas leave when the man gets back on a free passage.

TSR2 Aircraft

4. Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will now make a statement on the development of the TSR2 and the technique to be used to discharge its nuclear weapon.

Mr. H. Fraser: Apart from the fact that I am satisfied with progress, no, Sir.

Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of when he expects the Royal Air Force to receive its first operational aircraft? Does he stand by his original statement that the TSR2 will fly before March, 1964? Why is there all this mystery about the new weapons system? What is this wonder bomber? Has not the House a right to know about it?

Mr. Fraser: We have been into this matter many times before. I hope that the hon. Member will take the opportunity, by arrangement, to go to Weybridge to see the TSR2.

Mr. P. Williams: Is it not important that this weapons system should not only be capable of carrying nuclear weapons but should be able to operate in a tactical and strike rôle with traditional weapons?

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman at any rate make it clear that some of the rumours that have been floating around about failures in the development of this aircraft are quite wrong, and that the thing is going ahead as expeditiously as we would wish?

Mr. Fraser: I thought that I had made that clear in the first part of my statement, when I said that I was satisfied.

United States Air Force Base, Prestwick

6. Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what are the financial conditions governing the tenure of the United States Air Force base at Prestwick.

Mr. H. Fraser: Her Majesty's Government recover the costs attributable to United States Air Force use of Prestwick in accordance with the usual arrangements governing the presence of this force in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dempsey: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. Is he aware that there is another condition, whereby the commanding officer demands that an American Air Force person must have the sum of £100 before he is allowed to marry a bonny Scots lassie?

Mr. Speaker: That is out of order. I call Mr, Brockway.

Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order. Is it the bonny Scots lassie who is out of order, or the question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The question is out of order, whether it relates to a bonny Scots lassie or anything else.

Aircraft, Northolt Airport (Route Flights)

7. Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of Stale for Air if he will establish route flights from Northolt Airport so that they avoid built-up areas in the neighbour hood of Slough similar to those which have been laid down for London Airport.

Mr. H. Fraser: Because of its proximity to London (Heathrow) Airport, the majority of outbound flights from Northolt ate confined to two lanes to the north-west, and north-east of the airfield. Except in very bad conditions, the only aircraft bound from or to Northolt which may pass near Slough are a limited number which are allowed by the Heathrow control to use the airways system. Under certain wind conditions these aircraft are routed round the Burnham Beacon.

Mr. Brockway: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that London Airport lays it down that westward aircraft shall fly across the playing fields of Eton College and so avoid the built-up area of Slough? Is he further aware that when complaints are made about aircraft flying over Slough, and the noise that they cause, the reply is frequently made that those aircraft come from Northolt rather than Heathrow? Will he do something to limit the flight of these aircraft over Slough?

Mr. Fraser: I shall write to the hon. Member, giving him the details, but there are remarkably few cases. At most there are only about 50 a month.

V.T.O.L. Aircraft

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in giving the Royal Air Force operational experience of vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

Mr. H. Fraser: A few Royal Air Force officers have already flown prototypes of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. However the Royal Air Force will obtain


its initial experience of operating this type of aircraft under the joint P1127 trials programme with the German Federal Republic and the United States announced in the 1962 Defence White Paper.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind that this revolutionary British innovation was achieved entirely without the support of the Air Ministry until it was actually flying, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will give this invention much more support than it is receiving at present? Is it not an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs that the first operational vertical take-off and landing aircraft will be French ones, although this was a British invention in the first instance?

Mr. Fraser: We are still ahead. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is fully confident about this aircraft. We very much hope that trials will start next year.

Mr. Cronin: Can the Minister at least assure the House that a British vertical take-off and landing aircraft will be the first one of its type to be operational?

Mr. Fraser: I could not give that assurance. What I say is that our P1154, when it comes into operation, will be the best in the world.

Sir John Eden: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that despite the unfortunate event which took place at the Paris Air Show the confidence of the Royal Air Force in the P1127 and the P1154 is in no way shaken?

Mr. Fraser: That is so.

Strike-Reconnaissance Aircraft, Cyprus

9. Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on the operational rôle of the strike-reconnaissance aircraft in Cyprus.

Mr. H. Fraser: The Canberra force in the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus has a nuclear strike and reconnaissance rôle in support of C.E.N.T.O. It is also a ground attack force equipped for the conventional rôle with rockets and high explosive bombs, to which will soon be added the French Nord-Aviation A.S.30 guided air-to-ground missile.

Mr. Cronin: Is not the radius of action of this reconnaissance-strike aircraft such that for all practical purposes it covers only friendly territory? Are there any arrangements for this aircraft to operate from bases in other parts of the Middle East?

Mr. Fraser: These aircraft have operational plans, in which I am perfectly confident. They will carry out a wide range of activities.

Fylingdales Early Warning Station

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary of State for Air what study he has made of the data made available to him from tests carried out by the Radio Corporation of America Limited at Fylingdales Early Warning Station; and what conclusions he has drawn regarding the length of warning of hostile missiles and the accuracy of retaliatory action.

Mr. H. Fraser: A team of members of the United States Air Force, the Royal Air Force and the Radio Corporation of America Ltd. is carrying out routine tests of equipment installed at Fylingdales. These are proceeding satisfactorily. The length of warning of hostile missiles given by the station would depend on a number of variables, but I can assure the hon. Member that the V-bombers would be able to carry out accurate retaliatory action. The accuracy of the retaliation is not, of course, dependent upon the warning given from Fylingdales.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received some information, which I am prepared to pass on to him, which suggests that this station is virtually worthless in its present position, because of the topography of the local area; that the maximum amount of warning given would be two minutes, and that any information sent to the launching pad would be hundreds of miles off target? If I give the right hon. Gentleman the information and the source of it, will the Minister investigate it and discuss it with the Americans?

Mr. Fraser: I have seen this information, which is pretty inaccurate. It has appeared in one northern newspaper, and refers to the multi-path propagation problems of a new radar station. This is fully in hand, and I have full confidence that any local difficulties that may


exist will be quickly overcome. As for the siting of the station, there is no question that this is the right site. It was decided upon by our experts and American experts. I have checked this newspaper article, which may have been the source of the hon. Member's information, and I find it to be entirely erroneous and misleading.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the source of this information is not a newspaper article? I will give him the source. Will he now tell me that if I pass it to him he will investigate it?

Mr. Fraser: indicated assent.

Sir John Eden: Can my right hon. Friend say when this important part of the overall defensive system in the West will come into operation?

Mr. Fraser: I very much hope that it will be in September.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Proposed Closures (Trade Union Consultation)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Transport if, before deciding whether to approve rail closures submitted to him by the Railways Board, he will give a general direction to the Board to consult the trade unions, with a view to securing economies by the abandonment of restrictive practices and thus enable certain passenger services to be retained.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): No, Sir. The Board informs me that it is already doing all it can, in consultation with the trade unions, to limit the effect of any restrictive practices on the cost of its services, but it does not regard such practices as a factor materially affecting the economics of any passenger services which it plans to discontinue.

Sir Richard Glyn: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be against the best interests of the railway workers, and of the nation as a whole, if passenger services were to be withdrawn when they could have been made economically viable by the abandonment of restrictive practices, and will he look at this matter again?

Mr. Marples: The question of restrictive practices is one of management between the Railways Board and the unions. In this industry I am bound to say that there has been a good deal of useful consultation.

Sir J. Maitland: Why is the need for economy so little stressed when economies might even make the difference between closing or not closing a marginal line?

Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend has any case in mind, perhaps he would let me have details.

Mr. Popplewell: As the Minister seems to accept that there are some restrictive practices, will he lay a White Paper and inform the House what are those practices? Is he aware that the railway men do not know of any restrictive practices involved in the operation of the railways which would affect the profitability or otherwise of these branch lines?

Mr. Marples: It is a question of degree, of how much productivity may be obtained from a given number of men working harmoniously with the management. Measures for achieving greater productivity are among the subjects discussed between the management and the unions.

Mr. Popplewell: But that is not a question of restrictive practices as such.

Proposed Closures (Road Improvements)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport what provisional estimate for necessary road improvements was made by his divisional road engineers as a result of their first examination of the Beeching Report.

Mr. Marples: My divisional road engineers have made a broad examination of the consequences of possible rail closures in their areas, but they have not yet beenable to advise me what particular road improvements may be needed; obviously this must await the detailed examination of each closure proposal. No estimate of cost is therefore possible at this stage.

Mr. Digby: Have these investigations taken fully into account the additional traffic at holiday times in the holiday areas where railway lines will be closed


and holiday-makers will be able to travel only by road?

Mr. Marples: They will be. The proposals are only those of the Railways Board. Each closure proposal will come before the Minister and then the question of alternative means of transport, the number of buses on the road, the extent and strength of the road and whether it is necessary to widen it will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Webster: As the closures represent a saving of central funds, will my right hon. Friend consider making a sizeable contribution from central funds to improve roads in areas where there are rail closures?

Mr. Marples: We had better look at each case on its merits.

Mr. Barnett: May I ask whether when deciding about the closing of a line the Minister will take into account the probable cost of supplying road transport facilities?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir.

Communications, Development Districts

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Transport what special steps he is taking to improve road communications to development districts; and, in particular, what additional expenditure he has authorised as the result of the scheduling of the Bideford-Torrington area under the Local Employment Act, 1960.

Mr. Marples: Apart from authorising special programmes which benefit a whole area, as I have done in the North-East, I can make grants or loans under the Local Employment Act, 1960, for roadworks which help stimulate employment and industry in development districts. I have not authorised such expenditure in the Bideford-Torrington area. But I am willing to consider any application that I consider eligible under the Act.

Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he will consider applications under the Act. May I inform him that I wish to make some applications? Would not he agree that in principle it is ridiculous for one

Ministry to schedule an area as a development district and for his Ministry then to say that the railway line is to be closed? Is not he aware that the criterion on which an industrialist decides whether to go to a particular district is nearly always the adequacy of the communications?

Mr. Marples: That may be so. It is one of the points which will be taken into account before permission is given for a railway line to be closed. That has been said over and over again and I can only repeat it now.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the Minister realise that there is adanger that while the possibility of a rail closure is in the offing industrialists will not go to a district because they are afraid that the railway line will be closed?

Mr. Marples: In which case it is up to individual Members of Parliament to say that industrialists will not go to a particular district, and give the reason, and we will look at it before the line is closed.

Public Conveniences (Turnstiles)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board requiring them to remove turnstiles from public conveniences on premises of British Railways.

Mr. Marples: I am informed that only two public conveniences on railway premises have turnstiles. I do not consider that their removal would be an appropriate occasion for a general direction, but I am bringing the matter to the attention of the Railways Board.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Government have decided to instruct local authorities to remove all turnstiles from municipal lavatories because they constitute a threat to the health and safety of women and young children? Is he also aware that some of the greatest inconvenience and danger from turnstiles arises from those on the premises of transport undertakings and that it is very important that British Railways—as a publicly-owned industry—should give a lead to privately-owned bus operators? Will he give an assurance that British Railways will give that lead?

Mr. Marples: I will bring this to the attention of British Railways, but only two public conveniences on their premises have turnstiles. One is for ladies and one for gentlemen, so it is equality all round.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

A.27 Road (Crockerhill Diversion)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a date for the commencement of work on the Crocker-hill diversion on the A.27.

Mr. Marples: As my hon. Friend knows, this diversion is linked with other road works, which are still under consideration. I intend to publish details of the proposals as a whole as soon as they are finalised.

Mr. Loveys: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the West Sussex County Council has been itching to get ahead with this part of the scheme for years and that the delay in proceeding with the work is entirely due to disagreement between Ministerial Departments? Cannot he give an assurance that this part of the work can be commenced this year?

Mr. Marples: I cannot give that assurance, but I will promise my hon. Friend to look at this matter again and see whether we can press on as quickly as possible.

Parking Meters (Easter Saturday)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will in future arrange for meter time to be free on Easter Saturday.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. There is no evidence that the demand for short-term parking in meter zones is less on Easter Saturday than on other Saturdays.

Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend come round with me when I am working in Marylebone next Easter Saturday and see the hordes of parking meter attendants roaming round the streets looking for the occasional motorist, and see that, on the whole, the meters are not used to the full?

Mr. Marples: I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I resist that invitation; but I will send one of my officials with him.

Pedestrian Crossings, Wychbold

Mr. Walker: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received about the need for pedestrian crossings in the village of Wychbold; and what action he intends to take as a result of these representations.

Mr. Marples: There has been some local pressure for a pedestrian crossing here, but this has not been supported by the police. In my view the volume of traffic is not sufficient to justify a crossing.

Mr. Walker: In view of the fact that 300 children have to cross the road to get to the school in the village, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter from the point of view of road safety?

Mr. Marples: I will consider it from a road safety point of view, but the best protection for school children is a school crossing patrol, which is a matter for the local education authority. I do not think a zebra crossing is the right remedy in this case.

A.25 Road

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in improving the A.25 road in the past 12 months.

Mr. Marples: Two schemes covering three-quarters of a mile in total length have been completed. Three other schemes covering two and a quarter miles have been started.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for this comment, but how does he explain his Written Answer to me on 3rd July this year giving exactly the same length of road as he gave in his Answer to me on 3rd July last year, which had double white lines for half its length? From the reply given on 3rd July, in two years there appears to be no improvement.

Mr. Marples: I must ask my hon. Friend for notice of that question.

Mr. Wells: I am sorry, I could not hear what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Marples: I said that I must ask my hon. Friend for notice of that question.

Mr. Wells: Is it not intolerable that when my right hon. Friend has the same Question put down to him on the same date, one year apart, he gives the same Answer each year? He ought to be well aware of his Answer to me. Has he not taken the trouble to go into the matter? This is the principal road from my constituency and the majority of Kent to the west of England. I must press my right hon. Friend to look at this matter seriously.

Mr. Marples: If myhon. Friend refers to previous Questions, surely be can do so in his original Question.

Mr. Wells: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

A.19 Road

33 and 46. Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Transport (1) when it is intended to proceed with the reconstruction of that part of the A.19 road between Sheraton Road End and Cold Hesledon;
(2) what decision he has reached on further development of the A.19 road in County Durham; and when the work will begin.

Mr. Marples: We are planning to start work on the Sheraton and Shotton Bypasses and the dualling of a 5 mile length of A.19 north of Wolviston later this year. The two by-pass schemes are among those which have been specially brought forward in the road programme to help employment in the North-East. A number of smaller improvements on the A.19 are also planned.
I am considering with my colleagues concerned the possibility of further accelerating the road programme in the North-East generally.

Mr. Shinwell: While I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the attention which he has given to this matter and for the letters which he has sent me on the subject, may I ask whether it was not intended to proceed expeditiously with this part of the road because of the industrial development associated with it? Is it not the case that in the last letter which he sent to me, which I received only yesterday, he seemed to indicate that it would be some

considerable time before the scheme was proceeding? Has he changed his mind in the last 24 hours?

Mr. Marples: I never change my mind after I have sent the right hon. Gentleman a letter. The great difficulty in my Department arises from the statutory processes which Parliament has laid down. They take an incredible amount of time. The House has laid it down that the Minister of Transport should obey those statutory requirements. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, subject to that, I move as fast as I possibly can.

Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for this move forward, may I ask him whether he will make special efforts to let it be known in the North-East that this has arisen out of the Government's programme to help to alleviate unemployment.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this part of the road, which is in my constituency, is not even known to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are deep waters.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to assume something which is not correct?

Mr. Speaker: Nor is it in order for him to ask the Minister to deal with the matter in that way, but I think that no grievous injury to the hon. Lady's reputation has been done.

Parking Meter Charges (Off-Street Parking Facilities)

34. Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Transport what is the terminal date of the current four-year period at the end of which he will exercise control to ensure that all surplus revenue from parking meters is applied to the provision or maintenance of parking accommodation off the highway; and what steps he is taking to ensure that all local authorities concerned present their accounts in such a way that he


is in a position to discharge his statutory duty in this regard.

Mr. Marples: The four-year period varies from one local authority to another. The first quadrennial period for the City of Westminster, which was the first local authority to install parking meters, ended on 31st March, 1963.
I am sure the local authorities are aware of their statutory duties, and if it should be necessary to carry forward any surplus from one four year period to another, will make the necessary application for my consent. I have in fact asked all local authorities concerned to let me have annually copies of their parking meter accounts.

Sir Richard Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that this complicated system will have the desired result of making sure that motorists get the off-street parking for which they have paid?

Mr. Marples: I think that it will, but if by any chance it proves to be too complicated as legislation has laid it down, one would have to consider altering it.

Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister assure the House that the money derived from the meters is being devoted to off-street parking arrangements as suggested by the Government and endorsed by the House? Is he satisfied that it is working effectively?

Mr. Marples: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is working quite effectively. In Westminster they have spent more money on off-street parking than they have collected in meter rents.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the general concern about the proposals of local authorities to raise their parking meter charges and the limited extent to which surplus revenue from these meters has been devoted to the provision of off-street car parking, if he will introduce legislation to enable him to control the operation of all parking meter schemes and to determine the amount of money to be devoted to construction of new car parks.

Mr. Marples: I do not agree with the premises on which the hon. Member's question is based. In any case, the present law gives me full control over

the charges and other important features of parking meter schemes and requires that all surplus revenue from them must go to providing and operating off-street car parks.

Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the fact that people are complaining very bitterly about the moneys not being used in that way? If he is satisfied about the position, why are the parking meter charges to be raised? Does he propose to see to it that all the money which is received in future from the increased parking meter charges will be used for this kind of parking provision? Does he not think that it is serious that these charges are being increased in the way in which he is suggesting, driving motorists, who are entitled to some kind of return for the vast sums of money which they have paid, away completely from the use of their cars?

Mr. Marples: Since the meters were introduced into London in 1958, more than 4,000 additional public off-street car spaces have been made available in the central area by local authorities and private enterprise. These are not used to the full now. There are vacant spaces for motorists' use. It is wrong to say that there is not the accommodation there. It is there, but it is not being used, and the reason it is not being used is that it is cheaper to park all day on the street than to go off the street.

Sir B. Janner: Will the Minister publish the accounts or get the accounts published so that we can see what the facts are?

Mr. Marples: I do not mind doing that.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the amount of space available for off-street parking is very small and that the difference between the gross and the net receipts is only about 10 per cent. after all the expenses of the hoards of attendants, loans and maintenance have been paid?

Mr. Marples: Whatever the net proceeds are, especially in the case of Westminster, they have been applied to off-street parking, and more money has been provided by Westminster City Council for off-street parking. This was the point raised by the original Question.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the extent to which off-street parking facilities are provided, or to be provided, out of revenue received from parking meters; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: Net revenue from parking meters in London amounted to just under £400,000 up to March, 1963. By the same date local authorities concerned had spent many times this amount in providing off-street parking facilities. There are plans for the provision of more. The position outside London is similar.
In general, I regard progress as satisfactory so far.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people regard the spread of meters throughout London as pock-marking and hideously disfiguring London's streets and squares? Is he aware also that the net revenue derived from meters seems to be out of all proportion to the disfigurement and inconvenience caused? Does he think that this is the best way of solving London's parking problems? Should he not look at the whole problem again?

Mr. Marples: The primary object of parking meters here, as in the United States of America and elsewhere, is not so much the raising of revenue as the controlling of parking on the streets. That is the object of the exercise. The first priority on the road should be for moving traffic. If there is any space available for parking, it should be used by the short-term parker—the shopper and the person doing business there—and not by the long-term parker. If there is a space available, it should be used by eight people for one hour each a day rather than by one person for eight hours a day. That is the object of the parking meter.

Mr. Strauss: Although not disagreeing at all with the view just expressed by the Minister, may I ask him whether the calculation which he gave in his original Answer was not wholly misleading? Did he not compare the annual revenue derived from meters with the capital expenditure involved in constructing off-street parking? The two should not be compared. They have very little relationship one with the other.

Mr. Marples: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that local authorities which have parking meters in their areas are not satisfied from the financial point of view. This imposes a great burden on them and on their ratepayers.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the other day his hon. Friend told me that there were 24,000 off-street parking places in Central London? Does he not think that this number is grossly inadequate?

Mr. Marples: It is for the motorist to decide that. All I can say is that they are not all being used.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much off-street parking is not fully used, particularly the giant underground car park at Hyde Park?

Mr. Marples: It is the same at Finsbury Square. It is the same at other places. All over London there are places which motorists could use if they were prepared to park off the streets. If they can park on the streets for less than they can off the streets, they will not park off the streets.

Road Construction (Night Work)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue instructions prohibiting all night work on motorways and other major road constructions where residential areas are likely to be affected.

Mr. Marples: I sympathise with people disturbed by construction work at night. In particular cases I have asked contractors to help and they have done so. I will do the same in other appropriate cases. But night work could not be prohibited altogether because by their nature some operations may, on occasions, have to be continuous or carried out only at night. Moreover, night work must at times be accepted because on balance it is more economical or reduces dislocation to day-time traffic.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that because he happened to be away recently it took over four days of urgent representation to stop all-night work on the new M.4 motorway at Brentford where it was disturbing the rest of


over 500 people? Despite all considerations of urgency in various roadworks, does he not consider that the needs of the private individual should always be given greater consideration than any construction work which may be going on?

Mr. Marples: The difficulty is to balance two conflicting interests, one of amenity and one of proceeding ahead with the work as fast as we possibly can. Sometimes it is necessary, particularly in pile driving, to proceed continuously, and that is why this was carried out at night, especially over Whit week when there was night work by the subcontractors, Marples, Ridgway and Partners, Ltd. This has been stopped, and I hope that my hon. Friend is now satisfied.

B.4102 Road

Mr. Matthews: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for accommodating the increasing number of large heavy industrial vehicles which use the B.4102 road between South Birmingham, Solihull, Meriden and Coventry.

Mr. Marples: The responsibility for initiating improvements to this route rests with the local highway authority. Works have recently been carried out to improve visibility at two junctions on B.4102 between Hampton in Arden and Catherine De Barnes Heath and a further scheme for the construction of a new stretch of road half a mile in length immediately to the west of the River Blythe is expected to be completed by the end of this year. A scheme for the improvement of Hampton Lane, Solihull, which forms part of this route is also being considered.

Mr. Matthews: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply in regard to the improvements envisaged for this route. Is he aware that once the heavy commercial vehicles are off the road and diverted in other ways private motor cars are likely to travel very fast through the neighbouring village of Hampton in Arden? Would he take steps to enforce a strict speed limit through the village?

Mr. Marples: Enforcement is for the police. Fixing a speed limit is for my Department. I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

M.1 (Sheffield-Leeds Section)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport if the contracts have been agreed to for the construction of the Sheffield to Leeds section of the M.1 motorway.

Mr. Marples: Tenders will be invited as soon as the statutory processes and the complex engineering preparation are complete. As the hon. Member is aware, I plan to start construction of the Don Viaduct, and of some substantial portion of the roadworks, during the next financial year. The remaining roadworks will follow by stages thereafter.

Mr. Roberts: May I have a firm assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that it will be possible to continue with the whole length of this road during 1964?

Mr. Marples: I could not give that assurance. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we realise the importance of this scheme, and if we cannot get the continuity that we desire it will be because of difficulties such as statutory processes.

Land, Leicester

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport why land required for the M.1 motorway at Leicester Forest East was enclosed and fenced in without prior consultation with the owners and without a compulsory purchase order; and what steps are being taken to compensate the owners of the land.

Mr. Marples: Negotiations with the owners of properties in Charnwood Drive had taken place before their land was entered last April. By a regrettable error in the plans used for the negotiations and the compulsory purchase order, the amount of land was understated by about 200 sq. yds. out of 3,700 sq. yds. required from six back gardens. The land was fenced at the request of a firm of solicitors acting for all the owners and increased compensation has been offered. I am grateful to the owners for allowing the contractors to remain in occupation and thus avoiding any delay to the motorway.

Sir B. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety amongst these owners, who are


not people of very substantial means, about the whole matter? The line has been moved twice without their knowledge and without any negotiations with them. What does he intend to do about properly and adequately compensating them for the land which was taken in excess of the land which it was intended to take and which has been enclosed without their knowledge? Will he make inquiries about this?

Mr. Marples: I will make inquiries, but, as I said originally, increased compensation has been offered and the district valuer will reopen negotiations if these people are dissatisfied.

Roads, Taplow-Langley (Accidents)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Transport what was the number of motor accidents involving personal injury between Taplow and Langley on the A.4 during the period 9th April to 30th June, 1962, and on the A.4 and M.4 together during the same period in 1963.

Mr. Marples: There were 53 personal injury accidents on the A.4 and M.4 together from 9th April to 30th June, 1963. In the corresponding period of 1962 there were 40 accidents on the A.4 and four accidents on the length of M.4 then open to traffic.

Mr. Brockway: Will the Minister agree that one of the objects of building the M.4 was both to relieve traffic and reduce accidents on the A.4? Is he aware also that, when the M.1 came into use, the combined accidents on the M.1and the roads it relieved fell by 26 per cent.? In this case the number of accidents has risen. Is not this due to the fact that there is only a two-lane road on the M.4 as compared with a three-lane road on the M.1?

Mr. Marples: As a matter of fact, we have gone into this very carefully and the period chosen by the hon. Member is from 9th April to 30th June, 1963. Everybody agrees that that period is too short to draw any reasonable conclusion. Therefore, I think we must wait for some considerable time more before we can draw a satisfactory conclusion.

Motorway Surfaces

Mr. Charles A. Howell: asked the Minister of Transport what reports he

has received from the Road Research Laboratory regarding the water-holding propensity of the various types of surface on M.1; and what are his conclusions regarding future motorway surfaces.

Mr. Marples: The Road Research Laboratory has not yet completed its investigations. Our later motorways are being built with higher standards of drainage and a steeper slope from the centre. Central reserve drainage has been extended to the full length of M.1. These measures should help to combat the spray nuisance caused by water on the carriageways in periods of heavy rainfall.

Mr. Howell: Was the camber of this road wrong from the very start? Many of us who use the M.1 frequently after rain find that, even with this new irrigation, if that is the proper word, in the centre lane the water is still there. When motorists are called upon to brake rapidly, as they frequently are because of obstructions on the road, it becomes very dangerous. Is the camber the cause?

Mr. Marples: It is part of the civil engineering problem. The cross-fall on M.1 is 1:48, which is generally steeper than on Continental motorways. On motorways designed now the cross-fall on the carriageway has increased to 1:40, with an even steeper cross-fall on the hard shoulder. The cross-fall is the slope of the carriageway from the centre of the motorway to the side. We are increasing it.

Parking Meter Charges (London)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport what consultation he had with the motoring organisations and local authorities prior to announcing his scheme for revised parking charges in London.

Mr. Marples: None, Sir. The various measures I have suggested for making the control of street parking in London more effective have been put to the local authorities concerned and will be fully discussed with them. I have also published my proposals in order to give everyone interested an opportunity to comment. Copies have been sent to the motoring organisations. Their views, as well as those of other representative bodies, will be fully considered.

Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that his scheme for increasing parking meter charges, taken together with the totting-up of offences by motorists, taken together with the other restrictive schemes, is making the motorist feel that he is being subjected to persecution? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of carrying the motoring organisations with him when he makes such announcements?

Mr. Marples: These are proposals, and proposals only. The motoring organisations and the local authorities will have their chance to say exactly what they like about these proposals. We shall listen to them. These proposals are not made because we are against the motorist. We want to try to make traffic move in the centre of London. I only wish that some day I were able to remove all the restrictions and allow the motorists and others to do what they want for a few days. Then we should see what would happen.

Mr. G. Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the motoring organisations in Sweden themselves suggested differential parking in Stockholm and that the system has worked very well?

Mr. Marples: I agree. But there they do not have the same democratic system as we have.

Doncaster By-Pass (Telephones)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that no telephone or other form of communication is provided on the Doncaster by-pass to help motorists when breakdowns occur to obtain assistance, particularly at night; and if he will take steps to remedy this omission.

Mr. Marples: Telephones will be provided on the by-pass when it is linked to the extension of M.1. On short lengths of motorway, as on many lengths of trunk road in open country, drivers must rely for assistance in emergencies on passing drivers, police and other patrols and any nearby telephones.

Mr. Oliver: Can the Minister say how long it will be before this road is connected with the M.1? Will he remember that it is almost impossible at night to contact police cars and other people using the road, particularly if an accident occurs late at night? If he intends to

install telephones or another form of communication on this road, will he get a move on quickly?

Mr. Marples: The principle we follow is that the provision of emergency telephones can be justified only on major motorways—that is, motorways of not less than 25 miles long. The Doncaster bypass is so far only 15 miles long and until it is linked with the other motorway it will not have telephones.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Vehicles (Wing Mirrors)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to make the fitting of wing mirrors on new vehicles compulsory.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir; vehicles which afford the driver sufficient field of view to both sides and have an effective internal mirror do not need to be fitted with wing mirrors. A quick glance before turning is safer than relying upon what they may show.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that a great number of accidents are caused when vehicles pull out from a parked position and it is impossible to see through a rear mirror whether the road is clear and to maintain a view when one is coming out on to the road?

Mr. Marples: That is covered by the Highway Code which says:
Before you move off, look round, even though you may have looked in your mirror, to see that no one is about to overtake you.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that a pedestrian may dodge out from behind a car and danger can arise from that kind of thing, and that a driver cannot cover such an eventuality by the use of the rear mirror alone?

Mr. Marples: Wing mirrors can be interfered with. If one leaves a car parked, it is possible to return and find that the mirrors have been moved out of focus.

Buses (Luggage and Prams)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the licensing authorities henceforth to refuse Passenger Service Licences


to omnibuses which have inadequate facilities for carrying luggage and prams.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. This is a matter which is within the Traffic Commissioners' discretion when considering applications for, or variations of, road service licences. With their knowledge of local needs the Traffic Commissioners are in a position to consider each case on its merits.

Mr. Ridley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why rail closures are being opposed is that some bus companies will not allow luggage and prams to be carried on the vehicles? Would my right hon. Friend at least make a statement to the effect that he expects every bus company to offer these facilities, because that would ease the transport problem in some rural areas very much indeed?

Mr. Marples: I agree with the principle behind the supplementary question. I have already published proposals to allow buses to draw trailers to carry luggage and prams. If the Traffic Commissioners issue a road service licence enabling a trailer to be used, trailers may be provided.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that coach body manufacturers, as opposed to coach chassis manufacturers, are producing designs—apart from trailers—suitable to meet the future requirements which are their concern? Is he aware that there is a belief that coach body designers and manufacturers resist the idea of producing designs which are somewhat unconventional so far as this country is concerned?

Mr. Marples: I am not aware of that. I have never heard that suggestion before. If the hon. Gentleman has any method of design which he thinks ought to be considered, I will look at it.

Vehicles (Slow Speeds)

Mr. S. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to ensure that no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation for compliance with the law.

Mr. Marples: I do not think it is practicable to lay down or enforce a general

requirement such as my hon. Friend suggests. I will consider, however, whether the point can be suitably incorporated in the next revision of the Highway Code.

Mr. Digby: Will my right hon. Friend look at this again? Is he aware that the wording of the Question is exactly the wording of the law which is enforced in over 20 American States. If it is found possible to enforce it there why cannot we?

Mr. Marples: We cannot adopt everything which is adopted in every other foreign country.

Mr. Strauss: As the Minister introduced legislation which was passed by this House laying down the minimum speeds for vehicles on the roads, will he tell the House whether he intends to implement that law? Has he any plans?

Mr. Marples: I want to implement it, but first we should get our roads into a condition where the implementation could be enforced.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend try to deal with the terrible problem of goods vehicles and old motor cars which crawl up hills at 5 miles an hour and hurtle down at 50 miles an hour? Can he do something about that?

Mr. Marples: All the Ministers of Transport in Europe have considered this matter at various times. Sooner or later I think there will have to be a decision in which the power-to-weight ratio of goods vehicles will be settled.

Vehicles (Mudguards)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with research into the design of rigid mud-guarding to make this more effective in preventing wheels of vehicles from throwing spray into the path of following vehicles.

Mr. Marples: The Road Research Laboratory has planned a programme and constructed equipment for research into this matter. I understand the work may need to continue for some months.

Mr. Dance: Can something be done about this before we come to wet weather again next winter? We have not had a very good summer and we


may have a much worse winter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is extremely dangerous, particularly on motorways, when fast-travelling traffic throws up spray which can completely blind motorists following behind?

Mr. Marples: I do not disagree about the seriousness of this matter. The Road Research Laboratory has already built a twin-wheel tanker-type vehicle designed to water the road in front of its wheels so that research can take place. It is taking place as fast as can be done consistent with getting results.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise motorists to fix windscreen washers to their cars so that they can avoid this trouble?

Mr. Marples: It is very difficult to stop heavy trucks throwing water from the side of the tyres—not behind, but from the side. The real answer is to have water which comes on to the wind screen and the windscreen wiper goes across it.

Mr. Stodart: Will my right hon. Friend agree that research has taken a remarkably long time, in view of the fact that these things seem to be taken better care of on the Continent?

Mr. Marples: The Road Research Laboratory, with which I have been in touch, thinks that it cannot do this in too short a time. It wants to make exhaustive studies in order to get the right solution.

Motor Rallies Advisory Committee

Sir R. Nugent: asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet appointed the Committee to advise him on the regulation of motoring events on public highways; and what it its composition.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. My noble Friend, Lord Chesham, will be the Chairman of the Committee. With permission, I will circulate a list of the members in the Official Report.

Sir R. Nugent: Whilst welcoming the formation of the advisory committee under my noble Friend, may I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware that there is still considerable concern about unregulated motor car and motor cycle rallies which cause a great deal of dis-

turbance in the country? When can he make the necessary order to set up a national scheme to control these unregulated rallies? Is he aware that the R.A.C. and the A.C.U., with wide experience of these rallies, would be willing to give him every help in this matter?

Mr. Marples: I shall certainly consider that proposal.

Following is the information:

MOTOR RALLIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Terms of Reference and Composition

The terms of reference of the Committee are:
To advise the Minister of Transport on the exercise of his powers for regulating motoring events on the public highway under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962.

The composition of the Committee is as follows:—

Lord Chesham (Chairman).

County Councils Association:

Mr. F. A. Butters, M.I.P.R.

Mr. J. H. H. Wilkes, B.Sc., M.I.C.E., M.I.Mun.E., A.M.T.P.I.

Association of Municipal Corporations:

Alderman O. J. Norris.

Urban District Councils Association:

Councillor F. V. Magness.

Rural District Councils Association:

Mr. G. Bowden.

(Alternate Mr. C. A. Bohannon).

Council for the Preservation of Rural England:

Mr. F. E. Ritchie, O.B.E.

Mr. M. V. Osmond, M.A.

Royal Automobile Club:

Mr. D. H. Delamont.

Mr. J. A. H. Gott, G.M., M.B.E.

Auto-Cycle Union:


Mr. J. C. Lowe.
Mr. D. Murray*


Mr. K. E. Shierson.
Mr. Douglas Johns.*

Chief Constable of Derbyshire:

Mr. W. E. Pitts.

Chief Constable of Surrey:

Mr H. Rutherford.

Ministry of Transport:

Mr. A. M. Houghton.

Mr. C. P. F. North.

Scottish Development Department (Observer):

Mr. J. Ramsay.

Ministry of Transport (Secretary):

Mr. A. W. Lovett.

*Note: Independent Members.

Noise (Committee's Recommendations)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport when he will implement the recommendation of the


Wilson Committee on the Problem of Noise that the use of motor horns, except when necessary to avoid danger, should be forbidden at all times in built-up areas; and what action is to be taken on the Committee's other recommendations for the reduction of noise from motor vehicles.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to implement the proposals of the Wilson Committee relating to the reduction of noise from motor vehicles.

Mr. Marples: As regards banning the use of horns, it has not yet been possible to obtain the views of the Departmental Road Safety Committee to which I am referring this matter.
Draft regulations giving effect to the other recommendations of the Wilson Committee for the reduction of noise from motor vehicles were circulated to interested organisations for comment on 17th June last.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend studied overseas experience in the banning of hooters? In view of the large number of smaller and noisier cars on the roads and coming on to the roads, is my right hon. Friend in full touch with the motor manufacturers on this problem?

Mr. Marples: Yes. I have asked the Departmental Road Safety Committee to consider what has been done abroad in connection with the use of horns.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many committees are now in existence, the reports of which he is awaiting before he decides what to do about anything?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is a little wide of the question of noise in connection with motor vehicles.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend not lose sight of this desperate problem of noise reduction and will he consult the Leader of the House, who told me the other day that we might have a debate on it at some time in the future? Will he think about legislation in the next Session?

Mr. Marples: The question of a debate on the subject is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I have already

sent advance warning notice to the motor manufacturers that we expect the noise which is at present created by vehicles to be very much reduced in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Transport what further measures he proposes to take to assist the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Marples: I was hoping that the hon. Member would allow me to answer this Question at the end of Questions. If not, I will answer it now, but it is related to the Cunard Questions and I should like to answer at the end of Questions.

Mr. Bence: In view of the serious situation on the Clyde, I am prepared to wait for an Answer until after Questions.

Coastal Fleet

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for helping the British coastal fleet; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: We have already, in the Transport Act, 1962, ensured that coastal shipping has a fair field to compete in and now my Shipbuilding Credit Scheme is available to British coastal owners. I have no plans for other measures of assistance.

Mr. Browne: Is the Minister aware that our coastal shipping fleet has been the Cinderella of the transport system of the country for long enough? Now that he has dealt with roads to a considerable extent and produced the Beeching Plan, is it not time that he dealt with our other chief form of transport? Is he aware that the coastal shipping fleet has to compete with flag discrimination and manning scales which other countries do not follow, and high freight charges to ports? Does he not think it time something was done to help this diminishing fleet?

Mr. Marples: I shall do all I can to assist within reason, but already the fleet is protected from unfair competition by the railways. If our coasters carry larger crews than foreign vessels—although there is no evidence that they do—it is in no way the result of Government regulations.
Our requirements on crew levels are just as flexible as those of foreign countries. Just under 3 per cent. of total dry cargoes is carried in foregin vessels. Therefore, I do not think the fleet is being given an unfair deal at this stage.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) would receive a large measure of support on this side of the House? Is he aware that something must be done more than giving the odd. statement we get from time to time? This is an industry which is dying. The Rochdale Report, which is linked with the question of many of the smaller ports, indicates that they would be closed as well. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in coastal shipping it does not matter what happens?

Mr. Marples: I think it has done very well in those classes of trade for which it is suitable, but in those where it is not suitable there has been a reduction.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BENCE: To ask the Minister of Transport what further measures he proposes to take to assist the shipbuilding industry.

Dame IRENE WARD: To ask the Minister of Transport whether a decision has yet been taken on the proposition to replace the "Queen Mary"; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. KING: To ask the Minister of Transport what negotiations are proceeding for Government aid towards the building of a new Queen transatlantic liner.

Mr. P. WILLIAMS: To ask the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the provision of a replacement of the "Queen" liners.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): With permission, I should like to answer Questions Nos. 23, 73, 77 and Question No. 13, which is on the Order Paper for Written Answer, together.
The Cunard Steam-ship Company has proposed that the "Queen Mary" should be replaced by a ship of 58,550 gross

tons. The new ship, in addition to operating on the North Atlantic express service, would spend about three months of each year cruising. It would cost about £22 million. The company proposes to put up £4 million of this and has asked the Government to lend the remaining £18 million over twenty-five years with interest at 4 per cent. Cunard's previous proposal, for which the North Atlantic Shipping Act, 1961, provided, was for a 75,000-ton ship to be employed all the time on the North Atlantic express service. That ship would have cost £30 million. Cunard would have found £12 million and the Government £18 million, but at 4½ per cent. and not 4 per cent. The new proposal is, therefore, very different and, in general, a much less satisfactory one from a number of standpoints, including that of the taxpayer.
Nevertheless, the Government have been anxious to consider all reasonable means of bringing a new and modern British ship into this important service, which this country pioneered and developed. We have studied the new proposal closely and with sympathy, but we have felt obliged to decide that it is not acceptable. The company has been so advised.
We appreciate that some of our shipbuilders will hear this news with particular regret. But I am very glad to say that the Shipbuilding Credit Scheme has been going very well and will bring much useful additional employment to our yards. I have already approved the making of firm offers of loans of £13½ million to build approximately 170,000 deadweight tons of shipping. In addition to this, applications for about another £27 million of loans to build about another 500,000 tons are under consideration.
Since it is clear that we shall need more than the £30 million originally allocated, the Government have decided to increase the amount available to a total of £60 million within the terms of the scheme as already announced. This will, I am sure, bring the most welcome relief to our shipbuilding industry. But the House will realise that this relief will only be temporary. Therefore, I am already discussing with the shipbuilders what action they propose to take to secure the industry's long-term future.

Mr. Bence: While recognising the important contribution that this measure will make to the shipbuilding industry, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a shipbuilding yard in my constituency, Messrs. John Brown & Co. Ltd., has one 65,000-ton tanker on the stocks at present, and that is all? Is he aware that that firm has invested £4¼ million on new berths, making it the most up-to-date shipyard in Europe?
This is happening in one way or another up and down the Clyde and, since the situation is very serious, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving some assistance, perhaps in the form of an indirect subsidy—and this has already been suggested—to shipbuiders in order to help them to meet the high prices of British steel and the subsidies which are being given in the United States and on the Continent of Europe?

Mr. Marples: The idea of the Shipbuilding Credit Scheme is to generate further orders from the ship owners, and generate them quickly. That is what it has achieved. Messrs. John Brown & Co. Ltd. can compete for any of these vessels; and if the firm is successful it will have many more ships to build.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement, can he say whether he is, in fact, saying that he hopes that a Q.4 will sail the North Atlantic? Would I be right in assuming from my right hon. Friend's remarks that the Cunard Company will be able to take advantage of the increased credit pool? Is my right hon. Friend continuing his conversations with the Cunard Company? In his very delightful reference to what had been done to develop the North Atlantic trade—and since the original "Mauretania" was built on the Tyne—will my right hon. Friend pay an additional tribute to the technical skill of Swan Hunters and Vickers-Armstrong, who developed the first revolutionary new proposal for the North Atlantic route?

Mr. Marples: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not discriminate between the efficiency of the various shipyards in Britain.
The future of the service is a matter for the Cunard Company. The Government's decision is that it would not be

justifiable to subsidise it to the extent proposed by the Cunard Company in this particular set of proposals.
I do not know whether the Cunard Company proposes to apply for a loan. We must wait and see whether it applies and what sort of loan it may ask for.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that while the building of the Q.4 may be a matter of supreme importance to some shipbuilding parts of England, the maintenance of a service like that provided by the "Queen Mary" and "Queen Elizabeth" is of vital importance to Southampton and our passenger transport across the water?
While the "Queen Mary" is at present on her way to becoming obsolescent, would it not be a tragedy if we were to lose the kind of service which is provided by the "Queens"? While the proposals made by the Cunard Company may be unacceptable in their present form to the Government, can the Minister assure the House that his mind is not closed to the possibility of building a Q.4, both from the point of view of the employment it will provide to the shipbuilding industry and the important service it can provide for passenger transport across the Atlantic?

Mr. Marples: I must make it quite clear that I realise the importance of this service, which this country started, has run and has received great credit throughout the world for so doing. At the same time, the present proposal from the Cunard Company—and we must be quite firm about this—is not satisfactory. If the company produces another proposal I would be quite prepared to look at it, whatever it might be.

Mr. P. Williams: I welcome the extension of this scheme from £30 million to £60 million. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Cunard Company could apply for credit facilities under this scheme? Will he also make it clear that this will mean the introduction of legislation at an early date and can he confirm when the first actual order will be placed in a shipyard, since this is a matter of considerable urgency?

Mr. Marples: An order can be placed and we have already sent out agreements to various proposals. Thus an order can be placed. That does not necessarily


mean that actual shipbuilding will start at once, because the preparation of the plans are of supreme importance, as they are in other forms of building. It is essential, in shipbuilding, that a great deal of time should be spent on the actual detailed drawing before building starts; but there is no reason why it should not start quickly.
The Cunard Company can apply, and is at liberty, like any other ship owner, to be treated on the same basis.
Regarding the powers to lend money, I hope to introduce a Bill as soon as I can. Until such a Bill is passed, the authority for the service will rest on the Appropriation Act.

Mr. Strauss: Does the Minister recall the Conservative Party's manifesto at the time of the last General Election, in which it was categorically stated that the Conservatives
…intend to support the replacement of the Queen liners
and does he consider that his action in this matter—his decision on this and previous occasions—is in conformity with that pledge? Does he remember a speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle - upon - Tyne, East (Mr, Montgomery), who said that he owed his victory at the election to that pledge given by the Conservative Party? Has the Minister any comment to make on this aspect of the affair?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. This Government passed the North Atlantic Shipping Act, 1961, and honoured that pledge. It was only because the Cunard Company decided that the terms for which it had asked were no longer acceptable—although they were what it had asked for and the company was given statutory power to have them—that the terms were not accepted; but we kept the pledge.

Sir L. Ropner: Can the additional amount to become available under the credit scheme be made available before legislation?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Steele: Question No. 23 refers to the shipbuilding industry generally. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to this morning's report that the firm of Denny, of Dumbarton, is going into liquidation? As this firm has already spent

over £2 million on modernisation and considerable sums on the Hovercraft, has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about that? If not, will he agree to meet the convenor of the Dunbartonshire County Council and myself to discuss this important matter?

Mr. Marples: I will certainly arrange for any discussion to take place over the particular problem of a particular firm. I realise that this has been a great blow to Messrs. Denny, but I must point out that the last sentence of my statement was drafted very carefully. I am already discussing with the shipbuilders what action they propose in order to secure the industry's future. I saw the Shipbuilding Conference this morning and, with its members, am doing my best to see if we can take care of the distant future, as distinct from the immediate future.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will receive the congratulations of many on having implemented the original manifesto, and on having considerably improved on the terms of what was, in any case, a foolish idea, by his present proposals?

Mr. Marples: I hope that these pro-proposals are acceptable to the House. I was quite certain that when we announced this scheme we would get shipbuilding orders brought forward. That is what we want—quick orders. That has already happened with the applications we have had—so much so that we want more money. That has been done fairly quickly, and I hope that the House appreciates that.

Mr. Shinwell: It would be foolish not to welcome the Government's proposals, even if they are belated. If he can come forward, after consultation with the Cunard Company, with a modified scheme, we would welcome the building of another "Queen" liner, I want the right hon. Gentleman to understand that as coming from those who know something about shipping and the shipbuilding industry. Would he care to spread the net wider, if the Government have the financial facilities available? Is he aware that some British lines, particularly those operating betwen the United Kingdom and the River Plate, are likely to close down because of financial and trade difficulties?


Will he take into account submissions made to him on the subject by certain shipping lines?

Mr. Marples: I have already seen the lines that go between here and South America, particularly the west coast of South America, and I will see what I can possibly do for them.
If the Cunard Company comes forward with a proposal that is substantially better than this one, it will certainly be considered.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go on with this now.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY POLICY

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about forestry policy.
In his statement on the Government's forestry policy in July, 1958, my predecessor said that the size of subsequent Forestry Commission programmes, and the structure of grants to private woodland owners, would be reviewed in five years time. This review has now been held, and the Government have reached the following conclusions on it.
Over the next decade, from 1964 to 1973, the Forestry Commission will aim at planting a further 450,000 acres. It will continue to concentrate on acquiring land in the upland areas, particularly in Scotland and Wales, where population is declining and where the expansion of forestry can bring considerable social and employment benefits.
The Commission will be able to acquire land in other areas where there are good economic reasons or where planting can maintain or improve the beauty of the landscape. The planting programme for each year, and its distribution between the three countries, will be determined from time to time by the forestry Ministers.
The Commission, in preparing its future programmes, will bear in mind the need, wherever possible, to provide public access and recreation, and will

devote more attention to increasing the beauty of the landscape.
We propose to make no change in the structure of the present grants to private woodland owners. Under our existing arrangements, the level of grants is examined every three years to take account of changes in costs and receipts. The latest of these reviews is in progress at the moment.
The Government welcome the increasing acreage of timber planted by private owners. The tradition of skill and knowledge which has been built up and the research which has been carried out in private forests has been of great benefit to the nation. The continuation of the grants to the private woodlands confirms the Government's confidence in private forestry and provides support for its continued place in our national forest policy.
Our policy of steady expansion in both public and private forestry means that a growing volume of home-produced timber will be coming on to the market, to the benefit of our balance of payments. As the volume increases, so it will become more clearly necessary for the Commission, the private interests and the trade to pay greater attention to the whole problem of the marketing and use of home-grown timber. Moreover, the steady expansion in home production will give the timber trade confidence to develop its plans for handling home-produced timber as it comes forward.

Mr. Peart: We on this side welcome the desire to increase the home-grown timber industry, and especially the aim of the Forestry Commission to plant a further 450,000 acres, but is the Minister satisfied that the Commission has sufficient powers to acquire land, either here or in Scotland, to achieve that aim?
Will he also say what consultations he has had with the industry about marketing, which is a key issue? Is he satisfied that the present arrangements for the co-ordination of foreign supplies of timber with our home production are satisfactory? We are anxious to expand our home industry, but is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that present marketing arrangements are good, and that consultations have gone on with private industry?


Further, as one who represents parts of the Lakeland that are affected by the Commission's operations, may I ask whether the Minister has consulted the amenity side in detail with the planning authorities and local authorities concerned?

Mr. Soames: We took the availability of land very much into account in deciding on the figure of 450,000 acres over the next ten years. We believe that this is an acreage that the Commission will be able to purchase and plant during those years.
As to consultation with marketing interests, the Federated Home Timber Merchants' Association, representing the timber trade, gave the Government its views, which were taken into account in reaching the conclusions that I have announced to the House.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would be consulting the planning authorities about planting in the Lakeland. This, of course, is inherent in what I said about taking more account of amenity interests and the beauty of the landscape. The Commission will, in particular, consult the National Parks Commission with this end in view, and will be employing a landscape architect to assist in that respect

Sir John Macleod: While agreeing with my right hon. Friend in what he has announced, may I ask him to make sure that there is the closest co-operation between the farming community in the upland areas and the Forestry Commission? The winter-keep scheme is being criticised just now, and I hope that the farmers who are going out of business in those areas will not be doing so just to the advantage of planting trees in those places.

Mr. Soames: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the closest co-operation between farming and forest interests is absolutely essential, and that each can help the other. I believe that the relationships, in Scotland particularly, are considerably better than they were some years ago.

Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we on this side agree about the importance—to which due credit is not always given—of the forestry industry in helping our balance of pay-

ments, but that we feel that very much more could be done? The Minister said that a further 450,000 acres are to be planted in the next ten years, but does that mean an increase in the current annual programme?
Is he aware that in Scotland, where forestry is a matter of tremendous importance in areas where employment is difficult to find, there has been concern about the decline in this work; and that it is thought that the Secretary of State for Scotland—and I hope that he will answer this question—has not been adequately using his powers to acquire land available that could be far better put to use for forestry than for sport?
Would he not agree that, now that we have a fairly assured market for much of our timber, it is all the more essential to maintain and improve our planting impetus?

Mr. Soames: These 450,000 acres are, of course, additional to what has already been planted. The yearly rate of planting over the past ten years was something over 50,000 acres and for the next ten years it will be 45,000 acres. In the last 10-year programme the rundown was to be considerably more in the first five years of the next decade than has now been decided. We have increased what was to be the planting programme for the next five years and this, combined with planting by private owners, will be 80,000 acres a year, which will be a satisfactory acreage to go down to trees each year.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be generally welcomed by both sections of the industry, and particularly the emphasis which he placed on marketing rather than planting, since many people feel that marketing is the big problem for the next ten years? Will my right hon. Friend keep in close touch with the Forestry Commission to get it to take a greater part in marketing growing timber and to do everything, including, if necessary, altering its organisation, to bring this about?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. I absolutely take my hon. Friend's point that marketing will become of ever-growing importance as the yield from these acres comes forward. The House may like to


know that over the last five or six years timber-using industries have been established in England, Scotland and Wales which will be producing timber and a saving to the balance of payments to the tune of about £14 million a year. These are new industries and this is only the beginning.

Mr. Vane: Since forestry does not consist only of planting trees, but also of disposing of the timber, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, as a result of the detailed inquiries he has been making, he can give the House any information about trends of costs and prices and about the out-turn this year compared with a few years ago?

Mr. Soames: The trend of costs has been up, particularly in view of the rise in labour costs over the years. Trends of prices have been slightly downwards over the last few years, but the long-term prognosis is satisfactory. As for rising prices, this is because the usage of timber not only in this country but throughout the world is very much on the increase. In this country, where we produce only about 10 per cent. of what we consume, and 90 per cent. is imported, prices will be ruled very much by the price of imported timber and it is expected that prices will be on the upgrade over the years.

Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the programme of planting has fallen further behind and that the Forestry Commission is absolutely dependent upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to acquire land for planting? Why does not the Secretary of State for Scotland come forward and say what has been happening in Scotland? Has the plan been falling further behind and is it not a fact that the Commission is unable to obtain land except with the approval of the Secretary of State and if it cannot obtain the land it cannot go on with its planting programme? It is not good enough for the Minister of Agriculture to reply to questions when

the Secretary of State is sitting there and saying nothing.

Mr. Soames: The powers of the Forestry Commission to purchase land are no different in Scotland from what they are in England and Wales. It has powers of compulsory purchase, but it is the Government's view that sufficient land can be obtained without compulsory purchase for the planting programme which we have set forward, and we believe it is to be a reasonable programme.

Mr. Worsley: What consultation has my right hon. Friend had with the Timber Growers' Association and the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association? Have these consultations been fully carried out in accordance with the undertaking which was given?

Mr. Soames: I am happy about that. We consulted both organisations when we were starting our review and also at the end. When we reached our conclusions we discussed them with the organisations. I believe that they are satisfied that they have had proper consultation.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the excellent publication by the Peak Planning Board, Our Heritage of Trees? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this proposed acreage is quick maturing commercial wood and how much is deciduous timber which will be there for years? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware of the Danish 30-year study of shelter belts and that this type of tree might well be used in north Staffordshire and the Peak planting areas? Will he keep this point in mind?

Mr. Soames: I quite agree with the hon. Member about shelter belts. This is where agriculture and forestry merge closely together. Shelter belts, besides producing timber, can provide worthwhile assistance for agriculture. I am sure that we shall find, especially with the continuation of the forestry grants, that the number of these shelter belts will increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — OWNERSHIP OF PREMISES (VARIOUS PROVISIONS)

3.56 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Park in: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory acquisition by local authorities or the Crown of certain premises the ownership of which is disguised or uncertain so that the operations of the law are frustrated.
In exercising what is the most cherished remaining privilege of backbenchers, it would be at the least prudent if I were to begin by apologising to the House, and more particularly to you, Mr. Speaker, for recent occasions when I have strained our conventions and your tolerance to provoke further revelations by statements which many have considered to be irrelevant and some to be defamatory.
Now that the sound and fury in this House has died down it is time for the still small voice of Parliamentary and legislative reason to be heard. The House and the public have gone through a chastening experience, as a result of which there is an enhanced sense of everybody's personal responsibility for these matters.
No one wants to hear one more horror story, but, at the same time, these stories have still to be listened to. I hope that I shall elicit an assurance from the Government that they will be listened to and that appropriate action will be taken. But there is a general feeling that things can never be the same again, and there will be an immediate demand to know what we here intend to do about the problem which faces us. If the Bill is to be useful we must first be careful not to let ourselves be refrozen into previous attitudes either on details or on principles.
As for details, the Minister may well remember the discussion we had during the Committee stage of the Housing Act, 1961 when I moved an Amendment to allow the preparation of lists and the registration of dwellings of this kind. I am perfectly certain that there was uncertainty in the Minister's own mind and that there were divisions of opinion on both sides of the Committee and in the back-rooms of the Minister's Department. But we should not think that an

attitude taken up then when the decision was taken and the Whips were put on is unalterable. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has already indicated that it is not.
As for principles, possibly three emerged from recent discussions. They are principles which, I hope, would lie behind any new comprehensive Bill on housing, and if there is to be a small Bill it can be drawn up only in the light of those three principles. I hope that there will be general agreement on what these three principles are.
The first is that private property in houses is not an absolute and eternal thing. Indeed, the principle of private ownership is already hedged about with so many restrictions that it is time to re-emphasise and reconstruct the idea of stewardship and social responsibility in the ownership of houses. The second principle is that there is a social importance in the house itself to the community and to the local authority and that that social responsibility is directly relevant to proposals to amend and improve the powers of local authorities in relation to these houses.
The third principle, which, I think, has emerged, as I sense in the climate of public opinion and in this House, is that security of tenure is vastly more important than the exact amount of rent paid. If my proposed Bill is to be a small step in the direction of what we all hope to achieve, then it must embody these principles.
I need not rehearse the arguments that have been put forward so well this week from the exposition Front Bench, from the Minister himself and from the general public. The only point in my asking for leave to bring in a Bill now is to keep a foot in the door of an opportunity to enact some immediate legislation, however small, as an earnest of the determination of the Government and of the House to remedy the evils which have been exposed.
The question, therefore, is what should be in my proposed Bill, as the public are demanding that we do something. I am proposing, if I am given leave, to name the very last day on which the Government could give an opportunity for the discussion of the Bill, and I will not frame the Bill until I get some indication from the Minister himself as to which


points are ready to be brought forward in legislative form.
I would suppose that there are two things that local authorities will agree about and worry about. The first is that they will want some form of registration, and the second is that they will want a device by which they can recover or insure the value of the property which they might take over, without committing themselves to compensating a bad landlord for the neglect of his property.
I would suggest that if either or both of those Clauses, in what could be and must be a longer and well-thought-out Government Bill, could be incorporated in a Bill that can be put through this Session, public opinion would be greatly encouraged, and there would be some hope in the minds of many people, who have been trying during the last few weeks to draw attention to the need to tackle this problem, that this was an indication that the Government and the House have really accepted the present climate of public opinion.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not think that the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has any need to apologise for raising this matter again. But, although every right hon. and hon. Member must be anxious to remedy the wrongs about which the hon. Gentleman has so diligently campaigned, I would ask the House not to give leave at this stage for the introduction of a Bill of the sort which the hon. Gentleman has advocated because I believe that there are already powers vested in the local authorities by Statute to do all that he requires.
I quote The Times of this morning, which said:
More houses and not more legislation is the real answer.
Under existing legislation, if the hon. Gentleman will study it, every local authority has power to invoke powers of compulsory purchase for housing purposes. The compensation payable should be no deterrent.
The Leader of the Opposition said, on Monday, that compensation should be based on the tax returns. But surely he knows that Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act, 1961, already provides that any increase in value due to the use of

premises in a manner which is detrimental to the health of the occupants or to public health or contrary to the law shall not be taken into account.
Furthermore, if it is claimed that this type of house is unfit for human habitation, then under Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957, the local authority can acquire such house at site value.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North has made much in his previous speeches of the difficulty of serving notices, whether compulsory purchase order notices or under the multiple occupation provisions of the 1961 Act. Surely he must have read Section 169 of the Housing Act, 1957, which says:
…any notice, order or other document required or authorised to be served under this Act"—
that includes all compulsory purchase documents—may be served by addressing it to the "owner", "lessee" or "occupier", without naming him,
and by delivering it to some person on the premises or, if there is no person on the premises to whom it can be delivered, by affixing it, or a copy of it, to some conspicuous part of the premises.
This is what the Leader of the Opposition brought forward on Monday as a brilliant new idea. Has he not read Section 169 of the 1957 Act? Immediately the local authority has served the compulsory purchase order and the notice to treat, it can enter on the premises. That is under Section 85 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.
If the local authority wishes to proceed under the multiple occupation provisions of the Housing Act, 1961, it can serve these notices by the method I have described—by putting them on a conspicuous part of the premises. That is under Section 28 of the 1961 Act which introduces Section 169 of the 1957 Act into the 1961 Act. If the local authority does the work itself, it can put a receiver of the rents in order to recover the money.
That 1961 Act, which came into force only a year ago, is being widely and effectively used. Paddington has apparently had difficulties in implementing it. The Minister has said that he is getting in touch with the Paddington Borough Council this week to see why it has these difficulties when Kensington, Nottingham, Birmingham and Leicester have been able to get on with the job. I imagine that


there are staff difficulties. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that his Bill would take account of that factor. In addition to discussions with the local authorities, my right hon. Friend has appointed a committee of inquiry, under Sir Milner Holland, to define the scale of pressures alleged to be brought to bear on tenants.
The hon. Gentleman must have thought that he could get the Bill through in the remaining seven Parliamentary days of this Session. It is the local authorities who know all about this, who can put forward practical suggestions, who have real experience of these matters. It would be most unfair of this House to rush legislation through without the benefit of the views of local authorities as to what is the right thing to be done.
I come back to The Times:
More houses and not more legislation is the real answer.
My right hon. Friend has put forward a target of 350,000 houses a year. I my self do not think that that is enough. But why do not the Opposition challenge that figure? The only firm figure to which the Opposition have committed themselves from their Front Bench is to be found in the Official Report of 17th March, 1960, at column 1486, when the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that we ought to be building—

Mr. Neil McBride: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is speaking in opposition to the terms of the Bill or referring to the speech made

by the Leader of the Opposition the other day?

Mr. Speaker: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is advocating reasons for opposing the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Fulham said that we ought to be building 40,000 more houses a year than we were then building. If that is worked out, that comes out not as 350,000 but 315,000 a year. I hope that the House will refuse leave to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that I was referring to the English and Welsh figures. The Government figure is the Great Britain figure.

Mr. Page: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give a firm figure from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not allow—and I do not want a precedent to be made—interventions in matters under this Standing Order. In view of the divagations of the hon. Gentleman, I thought it only fair to allow that one, but let us not persist in it.

Mr. Page: I ask the House to refuse leave to the hon. Gentleman to bring in his Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 208.

Division No. 174.]
AYES
[4.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Darling, George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Ainsley, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hannan, William


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harper, Joseph


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Deer, George
Hayman, F. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dempsey, James
Healey, Denis


Benson, Sir George
Dodds, Norman
Hill, J. (Midlothlan)


Blackburn, F.
Driberg, Tom
Hilton, A. V.


Blyton, William
Duffy, A. E. P.
Holt, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Houghton, Douglas


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics,S.W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Boyden, James
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hoy, James H.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Evans, Albert
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Finch, Harold
Hunter, A. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Foley, Maurice
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Carmichael, Nell
George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gourlay, Harry
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, Charles
Jones,Rt.Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dalyell, Tam
Gunter, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)




Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds,W.)
Stewart, Michael (Futham)


Kelley, Richard
Parglter, G. A.
Stones, William


Kenyon, Clifford
Parkin, B. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Swingler, Stephen


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
Symonds, J. B.


Lawson, George
Popplewell, Ernest
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Prentice, R. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lubbock, Eric
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thornton, Ernest


McBride, N.
Randall, Harry
Tomney, Frank


McCann, John
Redhead, E. C.
Wade, Donald


MacColl, James
Rees, Mertyn (Leeds, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


McInnes, James
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Warbey, William


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, Tudor


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Weitzman, David


Mapp, Charles
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Marsh, Richard
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Whitlock, William


Mason, Roy
Ross, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Mayhew, Christopher
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Willey, Frederick


Mellish, R. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mendelson, J. J.
Short, Edward
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E)


Millan, Bruce
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mllne, Edward
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Woof, Robert


Mitchison, G. R.
Small, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Moody, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.



Morris, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


O'Malley, B. K.
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Lipton.


Oram, A. E.
Steele, Thomas





NOES


Aitken, Sir William
Errington, Sir Eric
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Litchfield, Capt. John


Allason, James
Farr, John
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Arbuthnot, John
Finlay, Graeme
Longbottom, Charles


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fisher, Nigel
Loveys, Walter H.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Barber, Anthony
Freeth, Denzil
MacArthur, Ian


Barlow, Sir John
Gammans, Lady
McLaren, Martin


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Berkeley, Humphry
Green, Alan
Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin


Bidgood, John C.
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Maitland, Sir John


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marshall, Sir Douglas


Bishop, F. P.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hay, John
Mills, Stratton


Bullard, Denys
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Morgan, William


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Morrison, John


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cary, Sir Robert
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Channnn, H. P. G.
Holland, Philip
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Chichester-Clark, R,
Hollingworth, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hopkins, Alan
Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Corfield, F. V.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Coulson, Michael
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Peel, John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hughes-Young, Michael
Peyton, John


Cunningham, Knox
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Curran, Charles
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pott, Percivall


Dance, James
Jennings, J. G.
Price, David (Eastielgh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior, J. M. L.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pym, Francis


Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Duncan, Sir James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Eden, Sir John
Langford Holt, Sir John
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leather, Sir Edwin
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Leavey, J. A.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)







Robson Brown, Sir William
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Webster, David


Russell, Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs, Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Whitelaw, William


Seymour, Leslie
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Sharples, Richard
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Shaw, M.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smithers, Peter
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wise, A. R.


Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Speir, Rupert
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Woodnutt, Mark


Stodart, J. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Worsley, Marcus


Storey, Sir Samuel
Vickers, Miss Joan



Studholme, Sir Henry
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Summers, Sir Spencer
Walker, Peter
Mr. Percival and


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
 Mr. Graham Page.


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wall, Patrick

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[SIR WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(APPROPRIATION OF SUMS VOTED FOR SUPPLY SERVICES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.20 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: I do not intend to take up more than a very few minutes of the Committee's time on a point which, I am advised, is appropriately taken at this stage, although I recognise that it is unusual to speak on the Committee stage of this Bill. I will attempt to make my point as briefly as possible.
It concerns the use of the Appropriation Act for giving legislative sanction to expenditure referred to in the Supplementary Estimate for the loans to ship owners, to which reference was made earlier today. I recognise that it would be out of order to discuss in any shape or form the merits of the proposals in the Government's mind.
What I am concerned with is the use of the Appropriation Act for this purpose when it is well known that the Public Accounts Committee has frowned in no uncertain terms on the use of this Act in substitution for a proper Bill dealing with the subject in question. We were told on 29th May, when the Minister of Transport referred to this

matter, that legislation would be required. Nevertheless, this Bill is being used, although legislation giving legislative sanction is promised later in the year.

When this matter has been raised with the Treasury on previous occasions, the justification for using this Act in this way advanced by it has been one of urgency. It is difficult to understand why there should be this urgency when the Supplementary Estimate to which I have referred states:
It is not expected that any expenditure will be incurred in the current financial year.
I should, therefore, like to know why the Appropriation Act is being used for this purpose if, in fact, no expenditure in the current year is expected.

The other point that I wish to make is this. We are told that there will be a Bill. When that Bill is debated it will, no doubt, be known that the authorisation by Parliament for the expenditure referred to in the Bill will already have been given by the passing of the Measure with which we are concerned today. It seems to me highly undesirable, to say the least of it, that the expenditure should be authorised in advance of a discussion on the details of how that expenditure shall be applied.

I therefore hope that when the Bill comes along the protest that I have made will make it clear that the discussion should be in no way inhibited or views prejudiced by the fact that authority has been given at this stage for the expenditure referred to in the Supplementary Estimate.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) has raised this point is yet another instance of the


vigilance of the Estimates Committee. It is useful that I should have the opportunity of explaining the reason for this somewhat exceptional procedure, although I hasten to add that it is by no means unique.
May I remind hon. Members briefly of the sequence of events. On 29th May, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced to the House at some length the Government's proposal, to which reference was made at the end of Question Time today, to make loans to United Kingdom ship owners in certain circumstances. My right hon. Friend's statement was welcomed on both sides of the House. It has been recognised throughout, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend, that legislation should be introduced to cover this new service, but the Government were confronted with this very real difficulty. The state of the legislative programme was such that there was no possibility of the necessary legislation being introduced during this Session. It may be argued on the ground of propriety—I believe misguidedly—that we should, therefore, have delayed the introduction of this scheme until next Session.
While, like my hon. Friend, I must avoid arguing the merits of the policy announced by my right hon. Friend, I think that, since my hon. Friend referred to the matter of urgency, I should remind hon. Members that our shipbuilders have been faced with a trough in demand, if I may put it in that way, which has brought their order books very low. Therefore, once it had been decided by the Government that the new scheme should be introduced, it seemed to us highly desirable that it should be put into effect at the earliest possible opportunity. Because there was no possibility of legislation this Session, the only way that we could proceed was to rest the authority for the new service on the Appropriation Act, as we have done.
When considering whether this is a proper way of proceeding, I think that it is highly relevant to bear in mind that, while we want to be able to incur commitments in order to get the scheme going—and it is because we want to incur commitments that we need some authority for the Minister of Transport to pro-

ceed—we do not expect that any loans will actually be made during the current financial year. If we had not taken the step which we have taken by presenting an Estimate to the Committee of Supply, which was subsequently reported to the House, and also by dealing with this matter in the Appropriation Act, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport would not have had the necessary authority to enter into the commitments which are essential if we are to get the scheme going.
Furthermore, those hon. Members who have examined the Estimate in question will observe that we went to considerable lengths to make the position crystal clear by setting out the salient factors which were known at that time. First, reference was made to the original announcement of 29th May to which my hon. Friend referred; secondly, it is stated that it is not expected that any expenditure will be incurred during the present financial year; thirdly the purpose of the token provision—for it is only a token provision—is stated to be to secure parliamentary authority for the service, that is, to enable us to start entering into commitments; and, fourthly, in a footnote to the Estimate a specific undertaken is given that legislation will be introduced.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that, apart from the question of propriety, we need not have done more to inform the House of the true position at the time that the Estimate was presented. With regard to the propriety of the matter, I should remind the Committee that an Estimate has been taken in the past in almost exactly parallel circumstances.
The matter therefore boils down to this. First, the procedure which we have employed on this occasion, although unusual, is by no means unique. Secondly, the only alternatives which were open to us were either to proceed as we have done or to defer for several months the introduction of this very real benefit to British shipyards. I hope that hon. Members will take the view that in these exceptional circumstances we did the right thing. I give this assurance to hon. Members generally and to my hon. Friend in particular. We regard this procedure as exceptional and we believe that it should be employed only very rarely.
With that explanation and that assurance, I hope that the Committee will be content that we have acted reasonably and with propriety.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules A, B and C agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT (YOUNG PERSONS)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: The tradition of the House is that the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill is an occasion on which Members from both sides of the House may raise a variety of topics. It has become customary for the first of these topics to be introduced from this Box and to be a subject chosen by the Opposition. On this occasion, we have chosen an immediate and critical problem.
I say that it is an immediate problem because we are concerned with unemployment among young people and, particularly, with the prospects of the young people who have bean leaving school in the last week or two, or who will leave school at the end of this week, and who will soon go out on to the labour market. I say that it is a critical problem because the school leavers of this summer face an employment situation worse than that confronting any other group of summer school leavers since the end of the war.
There are three reasons why the situation is particularly critical. First, there are more school leavers this year than usual. There is now the largest number of school leavers of any year since the end of the war, except 1962. We are, in fact, in the third year of the so-called population bulge. It has bean estimated that there will be 300,000 young people leaving school at this time, which is about 20 per cent. higher than the number leaving in 1960, the last of the three years before the so-called bulge in school leavers.
Secondly, these young people are leaving school at a time when the general employment situation is worse than it has bean in July at any time since the end of the war. The July unemployment figures have not yet been published—I do not know whether the Minister will tell us anything today, since they are about due for publication—but the total of unemployment in the middle of June was 479,675, about 82,000 more than it had been a year before and certainly more than any June figure since pre-war days.
Thirdly, these young people are leaving school when there is a large number of young people, including some of the Easter school leavers, still unemployed. This makes the situation particularly critical for the large number who have just left school or who will be leaving in the next few days.
I draw attention to the fact that the youth employment situation has been steadily deteriorating over a number of years. During the first half of the 1950s, taking the whole period 1951–55, the average number of young people under 18 unemployed was 17,345. In the second half of the 1950s, from 1956 to 1960, the average number unemployed had risen to 21.816. The average number of young people unemployed in 1962 was 36,229. The average number for the first six months of this year was 51,323.
This year has been called National Productivity Year. It is a very sad reflection on that that, during the first six months of this year, before the summer school leavers have come on the labour market—we all know that this is the largest number of school leavers during the year—the average number of young people unemployed has been about 50 per cent. more than it was last year, two-and-a-half times the average number for the second half of the 1950s, and three times the average for the first half of the 1950s. Therefore, one can say, with regret, that our young people have, perhaps, been the worst hit victims of the economic failure of the Government and that this year's batch of school leavers are likely to be the hardest hit of all.
As we know, the situation varies from locality to locality. I expect that some of my hon. Friends who will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will wish to draw attention to their local situations. At this stage, it seems to


me, I am entitled to refer to one or two of the figures because, clearly, the areas where the situation is worse among young people and where there is the biggest hang-over from the Easter school leavers are also the areas where general unemployment is high and, therefore, the opportunities are very scarce.
The latest local figures I have are for the middle of May. On Merseyside, at that time, there were 3,704 young people under 18 unemployed, in a general situation of 5·7 per cent. unemployment. On Tyneside, there were 2,282 young people unemployed, in a general situation of 4·8 per cent. unemployment. In Glasgow, there were 2,220 young people unemployed, in a general situation of 5·6 per cent. unemployment. It is against that background that we have to reckon the prospects of those now leaving school.
I submit to the House that a young person is entitled to expect three things from society in this situation: he is entitled to a job; he is entitled to a choice of jobs; he is entitled to reasonable training prospects.
I do not think that I need labour for long the obvious point that he is entitled to a job. Any case of unnecessary unemployment of anyone is a tragedy, and unemployment among young people is a particularly bad tragedy from the point of view of society. We hear a lot of generalisations nowadays about the younger generation. I shall not touch on that topic very much because I think that generalisations are a bit silly and I believe that young people vary as much one from another as people of any generation do. But I try to keep in touch with young people.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not the only Member who tries to keep "with it". I am president of a boys' club in my constituency. As a magistrate, I see young people in trouble. I try in various ways to keep in touch. Everyone with this kind of experience will agree that the most catastrophic thing we can do to a young person leaving school is to leave him or her in idleness for many months without the prospect of work.
For years, the hopes and expectations of young people are built up at school. They are encouraged to work hard. They are encouraged in the idea that, if they do work hard, this will serve them well when they leave school and go to work. They are set essays—we have all seen them—on what jobs they would like and on what they hope to do in their working life. It is the most cruel thing if they then find that they are not wanted and that it will be months or even years before they can find work to do. All the expectations, hopes and ambitions which have been built up are then frustrated by their experience, and it is an experience which can scar them for life.

Mr. Harry Randall: To say nothing of the anxieties of the parents.

Mr. Prentice: To say nothing of the anxieties of their parents and families.
We are considering this subject in a situation which is fundamentally less secure than it was. In previous generations, a great many young people knew what they would do almost from the time of early childhood. In the country side, for many generations, a boy would walk past fields on his way to school and know that he would find a place to work in those fields when he left. He might know that in the local industrial area, the local mill, pit or factory he would be likely to find work, although, of course, there have been anxieties about unemployment in the past, too.
Now, however, we are looking at a situation of rapid change in which that element of security has gone. I do not regret it, because we are living in an age when the opportunities are greater, too, if only they are taken. Nevertheless, it is in this insecure situation that the fact of having no job at all is so catastrophic to the young people affected in this way. Therefore, our planning for full employment should pay particular regard to the needs of young people.
As my second point, I said that young people were entitled to expect a choice of job. As we all know, many a young person starts a job but it does not work out. There should be a state of affairs in which they have the right to choose, the right to learn from their mistakes, the right to change their minds. There is


nothing fundamentally wrong in the idea that young people may want to try three or four different jobs before they decide what fits.
But a by-product of this situation today, a by-product of the figures but which is not apparent in the figures, is that many thousands of young people are hanging on desperately to jobs for which they are not fitted, in which they are unhappy, in which they are not giving good service to their employers, and are hanging on because they have to hang on to jobs for fear that they would have nothing at all if they lost those jobs.
Some years ago someone coined the phrase "over-full employment". I did not think much of the phrase at the time, but what we are suggesting, what, in particular, I am suggesting at this stage, is that we want, in a sense, a situation of over-full employment for young people so that they can have the chance of a period of experiment, in which they can get the help of the Youth Employment Service and others, and learn from their mistakes.
One of the things that we need in such a situation as this is a much strengthened Youth Employment Service. The unsung heroes of the last few years who have done a tremendously good job up and down the country are the youth employment officers, who have done their work generally in a situation in which they have been understaffed and generally underpaid, and in which opportunities for training in their own profession have been far too few. There are certain things in the Report of the National Youth Employment Council which demand action, but what we need is continued vocational guidance, and it should not stop for a youth aged 18, for if we are to raise the school-leaving age we ought also to raise the age at which young people are entitled to vocational guidance and advice on the opportunities for changing their work.
My third point is that young people are entitled to reasonable training opportunities. Here we are in a familiar position. On this as on so many urgent questions which face us at present we are told either that the Government have appointed somebody to examine and make a report to the Government, or we are waiting for the Government to act on a report which they have already

got. In this situation we are waiting for the Government to introduce some form of legislation arising from their training White Paper of last December. The White Paper was debated in the House and I do not want to go over that at this stage. Indeed, it would take far too long, but there are certain observations that I could make now that the subject has been under discussion for some months since the publication of the White Paper.
First, I would press the Minister to give the House and the country, if he can, more information about the date of the publication of his training Bill. It is quite clear that up and down the country there is uncertainty in industry about this, and to some extent employers, unfortunately, and quite wrongly, are tending to postpone development of their own training plans because they are waiting to see what the Government are going to put into their Bill. About a week ago I asked a Question about this and the Minister gave me anon-committal Answer in which he said that it would depend on Parliamentary time and all that. I hope that he will take the opportunity to say more about it today. If he cannot, I urge him to say something publicly at the earliest possible moment in order to try to remove some of this uncertainty.
It is typical of the Government that they should be producing these plans at the end of the period of the bulge of those who are leaving school and coming on to the labour market. They have known about the bulge in the population ever since the children were born. They were warned about it with particular clarity in 1958 by the Carr Report—about the training situation, the shortage of skills, and the opportunity provided by this extra large number of school leavers.
The Carr Committee was absolutely right in saying that the bulge of the school leavers could not be regarded as an embarrassing problem, but as an opportunity, and, indeed, it has been an opportunity, a once for all opportunity, which is now passing away, to train quickly in a few years the extra large number of people in those skills in which the economy is deficient at present. Where the Carr Committee was wrong


was in suggesting that this was essentially a problem which could be left to industry with the Government just standing on the sidelines. We have said this over and over again in the House.
I remember listening to Lord Robens, early in 1959, saying from this Box that the steps proposed by the Carr Committee were inadequate and that more positive ones were needed by the Government. We now have a situation where the Government are just beginning to lock the stable door some time after the horse has bolted.
This problem of training is a twofold problem, the problem of quantity and the problem of quality of training, the urgent need to modernise and improve its quality.
So far as the numbers in training are concerned, the position for a little while was that the Government are getting away with it. They relied, in our view, before the bulge left school, far too much on exhortation, but the response of employers in 1961 was better than some of us expected. We were delighted, and we were delighted in 1961 at the greater number of trainees, but in 1962 although there was a further increase, it did not catch up proportionately with the rise in the number of school leavers, and this year, looking at the problem of the school leavers, there has been a most critical slump.
I would remind the House of the figures which the Minister has already give us at Question Time. In the first four months, that is, from January to April inclusive, there were 29,000 boys entering apprenticeships, 10,200 fewer than the comparable figure in 1962. There were 5,600 girls who entered apprenticeships, 2.100 fewer than the comparable figure in 1962.
If the industrial training boards that the Minister has proposed in his White Paper were in existence now, and they were in operation now, they might be able to take emergency measures, but in fact, as we know, this year's school leavers, in training as well as in employment in general, are likely to find far fewer opportunites than there were in the last few years. This is a real tragedy for the boys and girls concerned and, indeed, a loss to the national economy.
About ten days ago, I spoke at a conference in the West Riding of Yorkshire, organised by the Youth Employment Service, and attended by employers and educationists from all over the West Riding, and I did my best to repeat what the Minister had said, that employers this summer ought to have regard to the fact that there will be no school leavers at Christmas because of the new Education Bill, and that they ought to stock up with recruits and take as many trainees as they can. There was not a very great response to this, and this was in the West Riding, which, for many years, has been that place in the country where there have been more apprenticeships available and training opportunities than in the rest of the country.
Employers said to me that they had been frightened to do what they had been asked, partly for the reason which I have already given, because they were waiting to see what the Government would put in their training Bill, but to a greater extent because of the economic situation and their lack of confidence in the Government's plans to deal with it. Some said to me that in 1961 they recruited because they had confidence that the economy would expand but that since then there had been an economic crisis, which developed in 1962, with the unemployment figures of that year and early this year, and they felt that they could not now respond to the Government's appeal to take on more trainees.
It is in this situation that we on this side of the House feel we are entitled to say that the Government's training measures are like so many of their measures—that when they do manage to do the right thing they do too little and do it too late. That will be one of the epitaphs on the gravestone of the Government.
One matter which has hardly been tackled at all is the question of the modernising of our training schemes. I do not wish to anticipate what obviously will be the detailed debates we shall have on this when the Government's training Bill comes before us, if, indeed, the Government are still the Government, in the early part of next Session, but I want to raise straight away the point that it does seem to us that it is very likely that the White Paper was drawn far too narrowly and that the Government are


trying to catch up with the position they should have reached about ten years ago. Instead of approaching the needs of the later 'sixties and the 'seventies and having a completely new look at the training situation, almost the whole of the Government's references to this subject have been concentrated on apprenticeships. I have probably made as many speeches on apprenticeships as anybody else in the House. I do not know whether that has anything to do with my surname. However, I have always taken an interest in the matter and it is one I have returned to more than once.
What has become obvious to me is that as the needs of the economy change we get further and further into the position in which we need change in the industrial labour form. We once divided the labour force; there were the skilled men who had served their time, and all the rest were categorised as unskilled or semi-skilled. Now we need to raise the levels of skills or all kinds in all kinds of jobs—to have, so to say, the spectrum approach towards training, considering raising the skills, and the relevance of skills, in all kinds of industries, and at all kinds of levels.
Part of this job is extension of apprenticeship training where it is needed and improvement of apprenticeship training. I believe that the best apprenticeship training in this country is as good as anywhere in the world. Indeed, I think that we can congratulate both the boys concerned and their employers—the boys who won so many prizes at the recent international competition in Dublin where they got four gold, six silver and six bronze medals in the international apprenticeship competition. The best is very good, but the average is not good enough, and there is far too much going on in the name of training which is not training at all. We have to tackle this problem with greater urgency. Besides talking about apprenticeship itself, surely we need now to have a tremendous increase in the number of training courses available to those who have traditionally been regarded as being in semi-skilled jobs.
We need an increase in training courses for operatives in our new types of industry; an increase in the training courses in our retail trade, and in agriculture. In agriculture, the Apprentice-

ship Council has been going for some years, but still only 3 per cent. of the recruits to agriculture go through organised training in that scheme. We need a great increase in courses for the older school leavers who are to become technicians of one sort or another. Here again, the best of what we have done is very good and copied all over the world through the medium of the I.L.O. information service. The type of course in which a boy spends part-time in industry, part-time in technical colleges, and the various sandwich courses, are very good, but the small firms in this country are doing hardly anything about this because it is beyond their resources.
This is one of the first things that the training boards will have to tackle. They will have to think in many cases in terms of apprenticeship of young people to an industry rather than apprenticeship to firms. Just over a week ago, the House debated science and its application to industry. We have to realise that if we are to take advantage of the scientific revolution in our time, it will have to be tackled not merely in terms of training more scientists, developing research, and more development projects in industry, but in raising the level of skills of everyone in industry so that we can carry forward the ideas which the scientists are presenting to us.
The Government approach to all this seems to be far too timid. The timidity of their approach is characterised by two recent developments to which I should like to draw attention and which are within the province of the Minister. I see from a Press release that the Minister has just appointed a technical adviser on industrial training. When this post was advertised recently, I noticed that the Ministry were, for the first time, advertising one post as a technical adviser on industrial training—one post for the first time. They have made the appointment, and I am sure that we would wish Colonel Work, which is a very appropriate name, the very best in his new appointment.
I comment on the fact that the new adviser's experience is in the Regular Army, followed by experience as the assistant secretary of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and does not appear to include any experience in industry. I say that not to criticise this gentleman or his appointment because I


believe that experience of training in the military field, plus experience in the Institute, may make him a very valuable servant of the Ministry. I am putting to the Minister that what he needs and the country needs at the apex of a training scheme is a large number of technical advisers with diverse experience. He ought to have a group of these people. I want him to comment on whether this will be the only appointment or whether there will be others. We want a group of people providing the drive at the centre which will be followed up by the industrial boards that he intends to appoint.
On the 22nd May, he gave me a reply on manpower research. I see that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) received a reply on the same subject yesterday from the Minister of Labour. The Minister has just appointed a two-man team to estimate the needs of this country in terms of skilled labour five years hence. They are proceeding by sending questionaires to firms, asking them to be good enough to give their estimates, to which the firms may or may not reply, and then they will build up the results which will be available some time next year. I would have thought that if one thing is clear about the training situation with which we are faced it is that we need rapid steps taken in the Ministry of Labour or in some new central training authority which ought to be created to form a budget of the manpower needs in this country for some years to come. The Minister is already in trouble in Scotland, the North-East and elsewhere over the plans for extending training centres because local trade unionists are not convinced that the training is the right training, or that there will be jobs available for the people trained in them. If he is to answer that sort of criticism with any confidence, he should have available an estimate of the future manpower needs of the country.
We need it right down the line; we need it for the universities, the technical colleges, the apprenticeship schemes and training schemes of all kinds. We dare not waste our scarce resources training people for skills which may quickly become redundant. At the moment we do it by a series of unco-ordinated hunches.
That will not do. We need a plan at the centre. It may well go wrong and there may be mistakes, but there are more likely to be mistakes now when all the decisions are made without co-ordination through lack of central planning. It is vital that the young people of this country should get the training relevant to their task of earning their living ten, twenty or thirty years hence, and that means that all the training schemes must be flexible. We must get away from the idea of training people in a single craft and give people a more generalised training which will enable them to keep pace with the rapid technological changes in industry in the years that lie ahead.
I put it to the House that in considering youth employment generally and training in particular we need to have regard to the gathering speed of technological change. It is becoming routine for politicians and others in the perorations of their speeches to say that we live in a period of change. That has always been true, but what has not been sufficiently recognised is that we live in a time when the pace of change is faster than it has ever been before in the history of mankind. The pace of change is getting faster every year" and this has tremendous implications for the planning of our labour force.
The impact of automation in offices, the new mechanical coal cutting machines introduced into the Midland coalfields, the impact of automation in factories are all leading to changes much faster and more drastic than we have ever known before. We welcome that, but we can only welcome it wholeheartedly if there is real planning to take care of the effects of all this on human beings. In the past we have been able to muddle through periods of change largely through the process of wastage. When a particular kind of work has become redundant the employers no longer take on recruits. Gradually people are retired or die and the labour force is changed gradually by that process. The pace has now reached the stage when that will no longer do. We are faced with a situation in which redundancies will be much faster than before, when retraining schemes are needed and when a completely new approach to the manpower planning of this country is needed.
If that planning does not take place, the greatest victims of all will be the


young people and the school leavers. We can see it happening now in the United States of America. In the United States, where technological change has proceeded faster than it has here and changes have come in earlier than they have here, we can read many lessons. Some of their successes we can try to copy; some of their failures we can try to avoid. But, above all, they have failed—let us recognise it and learn the lessons from it—to adapt their youth employment and training schemes to this period of technological change.
The latest figure that I have is that 18 per cent. of teenagers in the United States are unemployed. This is an appalling figure. It is a figure that we may well approach unless we take the measures which are needed to deal with the situation. The steady increase in youth unemployment today, to which I referred earlier, may be the first symptom of the threat, unless we can deal with the situation in time and in the way required.
The reason is fairly elementary: if there is a situation in which redundancy is being threatened, employers in general will stop taking on recruits before they make their existing labour force redundant. Therefore, school leavers are, clearly, the first victims and the hardest hit. This creates demands for a general full employment strategy, such as the Opposition have urged all the time, combined with a training scheme relevant to the needs of the future and planned in relation to the future needs of industry.
I do not wish to appear—I hope that I have not in any way appeared—to be regretting the prospects of technological change. The Opposition welcome it and want to expedite it. We want to devote more national resources to science and technology to speed up the process of technological change. But in relation to employment, particularly of young people, it simply will not do to create a situationin which they become the victims on the scale on which they have in the United States of America.
When people argue about who should drill the holes in a piece of metal or chalk the line on the side of a ship, what they are really arguing about is who should become unemployed. We must create a society in which people are not

afraid of change, in which there are jobs available and in which training is available both for the older man who may lose the chance to use his traditional skill and also for the large numbers of school leavers coming on to the labour market. They are large numbers. The concept of the bulge in school leavers has to some extent been falsified by recent events. The number of school leavers is not going back to the old figures. It may go down a little from the figures of the last three years, but since the war there has been a birthrate higher than that between the wars. The result is that we are facing the prospect of having a working population in which the younger element will grow in the years ahead. All our policies have to match up to that.
I do not want to suggest that we must be on the defensive against change. I think that we must take the offensive with change, and raise the national product and use it to tackle our social problems. But if we fail, as we are beginning to fail now, and as we seem to be failing in relation to those who are leaving school at this moment, we shall suffer losses in the wealth that this country could accumulate with the aid of the new technology and we shall condemn hundreds of thousands of young people to the frustration of all the hopes and ambitions that they have developed in their school life.

5.4 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I certainly do not object in any way to the sentiment with which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) ended up, that we should take the offensive with change. Where I probably have some quarrel with him is that he has painted a graver picture of the prospects of unemployment for young people than I would perhaps agree with. That is why I thought it right to intervene at an early stage in the debate.
I am very glad indeed that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends chose this very important subject as the first item for discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I would assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government certainly are not complacent about the matter. We shall not be satisfied until every boy and girl has the opportunity due to them. What I am going to try to show now is that the situation as depicted by the hon. Gentleman


is, I am happy to say, not as grave as he has made it out to be. I understand that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House will probably wish to take part in the debate, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the particular points which hon. Members may raise.
Taking the country as a whole, there has been a very substantial improvement in the employment situation for young people over the last six months. At the start of this year—in mid-January—unemployment among boys and girls reached a peak of 67,000. Some 21,000 of those had left school at Christmas.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote comparisons not with six months ago, which he knows is a deliberately deceptive figure, but with a year ago? This is being almost dishonest.

Mr. Hare: I am not being dishonest. The hon. Member may make his own speech in any way he likes. I intend to make my speech on the basis of figures which are entirely accurate.
Even at that difficult period—mid-January—the absorption of school leavers into employment was still easier than might have been expected. Even in Scotland, in spite of the general unemployment situation there, which was a very grave one, school leavers found jobs quicker than, for example, they were found in the North-East, the North-West or Wales. Over the country as a whole at mid-January, barely a month after the end of term, the percentage of Christmas school leavers still registered for first employment was down to 14·3 per cent.
However, a total of 67,000 unemployed young people was, indeed, very high. Since then, I am glad to say, every month we have seen a fall in the number of young people unemployed—except for April, when the figure rose because of the Easter school leavers. In mid-June the figure was just under 33,000. This is—I say this definitely and without any qualification—still about 11,000 higher than a year ago, but it is less than half what it was five months earlier. What is even more important is that this fall has occurred despite the advent of about 143,000 Easter school

leavers, and it is satisfactory that all but 4,200 of these 143,000 had obtained employment a month ago.
The July figures—the hon. Gentleman asked me about them—will not be available until tomorrow. But these will be affected by the start of the summer school leavers. The hon. Gentleman was quite right. But everyone realises that the decline in unemployment between January and June has not been on this scale everywhere. I am sure that hon. Members will make this point forcibly in the debate. I should like to say something about regional unemployment later. The first point that I want to make is that a substantial improvement has already taken place this year.
What is of great importance is that there has been an encouraging rise in the number of vacancies for young people, especially for boys. In mid-June there were 26,000 vacancies for boys compared with 19,000 boys unemployed. For girls there were 31,000 vacancies and 13,500 girls unemployed. But I would emphasise the boys because this was the first month since July of last year in which boys' vacancies exceeded boys' unemployment. Again, the picture varies very much from area to area, and there are real black spots. But this rise in vacancies is another good sign.
Now we are about to have the summer school leavers. I should like to correct an impression which the hon. Gentleman gave. It looks as if their number will be rather less than last summer's record figure of 365,000, but not very much less.

Mr. Harold Finch: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the industries and trades in which these vacancies exist?

Mr. Hare: I can give the hon. Gentleman details of that if he will give me notice; I am talking now of industry as a whole. But even in the worsening unemployment situation of last Autumn, about nine out of every ten of those available for employment had found jobs by the end of the summer holiday in September, and about 99 out of every 100 by December. This year, in contrast to last year, the trend of unemployment is very definitely improving.
As the hon. Member for East Ham, North mentioned, there is also the very important new factor which will affect


summer school leavers, and indeed the whole unemployment situation for young people this coming winter. This is the change in the school leaving dates. There will be far fewer Christmas leavers than we have been accustomed to deal with. In the past there have been about 150,000 boys and girls leaving at Christmas but from now on this figure will be very much reduced.
This should have two encouraging effects. First, I trust that it will induce employers to provide more openings for young people this summer, including apprenticeships and other training openings. (I agree with the hon. Member that we are apt to talk a lot about apprentices and less about training on a wider scale than we should.) But employers should provide more openings because they cannot draw on another large exodus of boys from the schools until Easter. The Youth Employment Service is taking vigorous action to bring home to employers the implications of the change, and I am glad that this initiative has been strongly supported by the British Employers' Confederation and the Industrial Training Council.
I was glad that the hon. Gentleman described the officials of the Youth Employment Service as "unsung heroes". I join with him in paying tribute to their excellent work. Young people and their parents—indeed, all of us—owe them a very great debt of gratitude.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend also said that they needed further professional training. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about that?

Mr. Hare: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue with my speech I will answer his query. I agree that we want to make the Service better. The hon. Member for East Ham, North and I disagree rather on whether, at this stage, it should be expanded to deal with boys and girls over the age of 18. I want to improve the facilities it has for those under 18. I think that now that the peak of the bulge is over we have an opportunity to see how the quality of the Service can be improved. I am examining this with the help of Lady Albemarle, who is chairman of my National Youth Employment Council.
The second encouraging effect is that the change in dates should certainly help

to reduce the peak winter unemployment among young people. Midwinter is a very bad time for jobs and, as I have shown, almost one-third of last January's peak figure consisted of school-leavers, so this is certainly going to help young people in future.
So far, I have been talking about the position generally and have mentioned the very real improvement in recent months. But this is not the whole story. We all know that the distribution of unemployment among young people varies considerably between different parts of the country. In the South, the South-West and the Midlands the situation is good. In general, there are ample vacancies for the summer school-leavers. But in other parts of the country the situation is far less good and this particularly applies to the North-East and Scotland.
In both of these areas, especially the North-East, the fall in unemployment among young persons between January and June has been significantly smaller than the average in the country as a whole. I do not want to dismiss the difficulties of areas like the North-West or Wales. Their problems must not be ignored, but Scotland and the North-East have the additional problem of structural unemployment caused by a more rapid decline of their basic industries and by the subsequent need to compensate for this by a more rapid diversification of industry than has hitherto been achieved.
It is, therefore, in these regions that my worries are greatest, particularly as I know that within them there are some especially bad spots, for example, Fife and Lanarkshire, Sunderland and Middlesbrough.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman add to his list most of the valleys within the South Wales coalfield?

Mr. Hare: I have said that I do not ignore the problems of Wales but that, due to the structural nature of unemployment in Scotland and the North-East, they present particular problems in the long-term.
This, then, is the present situation. The Government are tackling it with two broad sets of measures. The first are those designed to increase training opportunities for young people and the second


group are those intended to improve employment opportunities.
For training, there are the opportunities at technical colleges, which were not mentioned by the hon. Member for East Ham, North, where local education authorities are running pre-apprenticeship and first-year integrated courses. In all, there are about 8,000 young people attending these courses, nearly 1,000 in the North-East and about 2,200 in Scotland. These numbers will increase. Besides this, the Government are making a direct contribution through the first year apprentice classes in Government training centres. The number of places in these is expected to increase to about 560 this year, and as new centres are opened the number will go up to about 800.
In Scotland, when the programme is complete, there will be first-year apprentice classes in six areas. In the North-East the three classes at Felling G.T.C. are to be increased to five, and there is the new experiment at Tursdale in Durham. In addition to the G.T.C.s, there are for young unemployed the day courses which local education authorities are empowered to run. I am glad to say that local authorities have been making a special effort and that a variety of classes are now provided.
Moreover, we have given a special grant to the North-East Training Council to assist in the provision of a group training scheme on Tees-side, and we are prepared to make it a loan in addition if this is required. Under this scheme, advantage will be taken of eighty places offered by I.C.I. in its training school for boys and forty places offered by Messrs. Dorman Long. Already, fourteen firms have joined the scheme, with 110 boys to be provided for. The scheme shows good prospects of making a successful contribution to the special problems of Tees-side.
But, of course, most industrial training is given by employers, and here the hon. Member for East Ham, North, was quite right to draw attention to the drop in the number of boys obtaining apprenticeships. I am very concerned about this also. We started the year very badly. In the first six months only 29·1 per cent. of boy school-leavers secured apprenticeships as compared with 34 per cent. last year. But I am glad to

say that there has been some improvement in the second quarter, so I am not as gloomy as the hon. Member about this.
In June, more boys got apprenticeships than in June last year, although the proportion was still down as compared with last June. I am not saying that it is good enough, because it is not.
Some employers may have been holding back to await the implementation of the Government's training proposals in the White Paper. To such employers I would say, as I have said already, that this would be a very foolish course. It will be in the firms' own interests to extend and improve the training they are doing so as to enable them to take full advantage of the new arrangements when they come into force. I cannot forecast future legislation, but the House knows where my heart is in this matter.
I am very glad that the chairman of the Industrial Training Council wrote last month to employers' and workers' organisations in industry stressing this point. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) knows, I have made a special appeal to employers and trade unions in the North-East and I take this opportunity to urge employers in all parts of the country to respond to this call for more action on the training front.
I now come to the real core of the problem and that, of course, is the provision of more jobs. We cannot consider unemployment among boys and girls in isolation from unemployment in general. It is part of the general problem of ensuring adequate opportunities for all, adults as well as young people. Despite what the hon. Member has said, there is no doubt that the economic outlook has changed for the better over the past few months. Ignoring seasonal factors, the underlying trend of unemployment is downwards and I hope that this month's figures will further confirm that. Business confidence has recovered. Production in May was above the highest level reached last year and demand is rising. The balance of payments has been developing favourably and hon. Members know that the recent trend in exports is particularly encouraging. The Chancellor is confident that his Budget and other measures to expand the economy are succeeding. He has made it absolutely


dear to the Trade Union Congress leaders who came to see him about a fortnight ago that he is watching the situation closely and will not hesitate to take further steps should they prove necessary.
That is the broad front and it brings me back once again—one cannot help coming back—to Scotland and the North-East and their special problems.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to Scotland and the North-East and it is well known that the special measures in the Budget will be applied to those areas. But is he not aware that there is serious danger of many young people not having jobs at the right time in other areas, in other parts of the north of England and in Wales and other areas which are not scheduled as development areas and where there are certain black spots, such as Doncaster, which need serious consideration?

Mr. Hare: Development districts will naturally benefit from the Chancellor's measures whatever part of the country they are in. I know that the hon. Member is interested in Doncaster, which will also benefit from the general expansion of the economy.
However, returning to the problems of Scotland and the North-East, and hon. Members must consider these special problems, the Government have introduced a succession of measures which will have a considerable effect on the economy of these areas. There is a formidable list which I will not inflict on the House now.

Mr. Finch: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to unemployment coming down, but in Wales unemployment is going up and apprenticeship schemes are going down. Will he deal with some of the regions when he is dealing with this problem?

Mr. Hare: I have already said that Wales has its particular problems and I have already said that development districts have the advantages of what has been done in the Budget and elsewhere. The general expansion of the economy under the Chancellor's general measures will help the country as a whole.
One must not minimise the problems of the North-East and Scotland. Among the main measures taken to improve

matters there were the addition of Tynesideand Tees-side to the development districts, additional allocations for roadworks, an extra programme of short-term construction work, the programme of 28 advanced factories, 12 in the North-East and 16 in Scotland, and, finally, the £30 million loan to assist shipbuilding which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced this afternoon would be increased to £60 million. These are all additional to the general steps which have been taken to help development districts throughout the country. These include the introduction of a standard Government grant of 25 per cent. of the cost of buildings and 10 per cent. of the cost of machinery, introduced to induce firms to establish themselves or expand in the development districts.
I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that there has been a great upsurge of interest in Local Employment Act facilities since Budget Day. In the three months following the Budget, the Board of Trade received 270 firm applications for assistance under the Act. This is five times the number received in the second quarter of 1962 and twice as many as in the period April to June, 1960, the first three months after the Act came into force. The Board of Trade has also received 225 provisional applications for the plant and machinery grant. I am sure that both sides of the House will find what I have said very encouraging.
As the House knows, the Government have gone further than this with Scotland and the North-East. We fully recognise that more fundamental measures are needed to deal with the structural unemployment which I have mentioned. That is why my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council was given special responsibility for examining the long-term economic needs of the North-East. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland undertook a similar study for Scotland. These studies have now been completed. They are very comprehensive. Among other things they take full account of the idea of encouraging areas of natural growth and they are now being urgently studied.
I have shown that I am much more optimistic than the hon. Member about the future holding out far brighter prospects for young people than the picture


painted by hon. Members opposite. The Government are expanding the economy as a whole and paying more attention to the need to secure wider diversification of industry. It is on the success of these measures that the future of young people in all parts of the country will depend and I think that these efforts deserve the good wishes of all hon. Members.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley: In rising to speak for the first time, I am encouraged by the fact that the House traditionally gives kindness and indulgence to hon. Members making their maiden speeches. I rise to speak as the Member for West Bromwich, conscious that my illustrious predecessor, the late John Dugdale, was a respected Member of the House for many years. He served the House well and he served his constituents well. I sincerely hope that in time I shall be a worthy successor to John Dugdale.
My reasons for wanting to speak in the debate are two-fold. First, I have been involved in youth work, nationally and internationally, for a number of years and have been particularly concerned with young workers' problems. Secondly, my own background of the North-East gives me an insight into the needs and aspirations of ordinary working people.
West Bromwich is an industrial town. Fortunately, it does not have the measure of unemployment which one finds in Wales, in pockets of the North, in Scotland, the North-East and so on. At the same time, it has recently shown that it is concerned with the needs of other areas. A delegation from West Bromwich recently went to West Hartlepools to discusshow West Bromwich could assist another town, a town in need, with employment prospects and the possibility of training people in West Bromwich and finding jobs for apprentices. This is a manifestation of the humanity which is so typical of industrial communities.
As has been rightly said, we have to set the subject of youth employment in its proper setting. We shall never solve the problem of youth unemployment until we solve the problem of unemployment, until we have an economy which is dynamic and expanding. It is not sufficient to relate youth unemployment to the population bulge. Fifteen years ago

we had the forecast on which to anticipate increased numbers leaving school and starting work. It is clear that we did not understand the dimensions of the problem, or that we were incapable of galvanising industry to meet its demands.
I want to deal with the social implications of unemployment and short time. In recent months, in many parts of the country youth organisations have been active forming councils to look at the problems and the phenomena of youth unemployment and its social consequences. On Tees-side, in Lancashire, in North Wales and in Scotland these youth groups have made surveys and inquiries of the needs of their towns and have tried to see how they could play a part in solving their problems. They have had a limited success for, in so far as finding work is concerned, there is little that youth organisations can do. What they have done is to highlight a number of problems which are the consequence of unemployment and which ought to be examined.
The first is that related to the choice of a job. For most young people in many parts of these difficult areas there is only Hobson's choice. There is no choice, and we are projecting the problem for years hence because, if we place a person in a dead-end job with no opportunity of change and no opportunity of choice, in years to come when that person wants to marry and so forth all the consequent problems relating to an unhappy industrial experience are with him. This is one very real problem, the absence of choice.
The second is a hidden problem, the problem of short-time. There are apprentices at Wallsend at the moment working only three days a week, youngsters of 16 and 17 years of age. There are many parts of the country where short-time is seasonal, but the consequences for young people with time on their hands and with nothing to do, healthy, able-bodied youngsters wanting work and not being supplied with it, are very grave indeed.
There is a third problem which is related to youngsters wanting a job and having to travel some distance to their place of work. The youth group in Oswestry made a survey recently of this phenomenon and found that young people


were travelling for between six and 20 hours a week in order to get to work—an average of 12 hours. The implication of this, apart from the 44 or 42 hours which they work, is that they cannot be back in time for evening classes, so in relation to this there is a disruption of the normal educative processes which one would like to see going on.
I want to mention the psychological problem of a youngster leaving school full of idealism and hope who is thrust out into the world of work and who on the threshold of adult life finds himself an outcast. Instead of being an asset to society he is a liability. He cannot get a job and is thwarted. This makes an intolerable mark on a young person's personality. He feels that the community and society have let him down. These are social and moral questions consequent on a policy which doss not provide jobs for young people, a choice of job and proper educational guidance.
In conclusion, may I make the point that the wealth of our nation depends to a great extent on its working force and that the young people are an essential part of that? If we are anxious to see young people playing their proper rôle in industry and emerging as responsible citizens, then we must make sure that we give them the proper chance to start life in the best possible way. I should like to feel that the Minister, both in his thoughts and actions, will pay particular attention not only to the expansion of the economic policy of providing jobs but also to the social and moral problems facing young people today who want to work and who are denied the chance.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I feel that it is a real honour to have the opportunity today of following the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley). I expect that before he got up to speak he perhaps felt as we all did and wished that we had the opportunity of Mr. Speaker himself, on the occasion of his maiden speech, when his first words were to urge the House to go into secret session. I feel that the hon. Gentleman need have no worry that the House did not go into secret session because we were all extremely interested in the sincere and deeply well-informed speech which he made.
It is a big responsibility for an hon. Member to follow a distinguished and respected Privy Councillor such as the late Mr. Dugdale, and even though I have been in the House only two or three years the courtesy and personal charm of Mr. Dugdale have left a deep impression on me. The hon. Member for West Bromwich spoke with knowledge, having been, as he said, an apprentice in the electrical industry, and he has also taken, as many people know, a deep and active interest in youth work both in this country and in the international field. I am quite sure that in these debates on Ministry of Labour affairs we shall all welcome very much the opportunity of hearing further from him.
This is a debate on the unemployment of young people. I am speaking for a constituency and for a borough in which the unemployment of young people does not exist and presents no problem. I am sure that that statement by me must come as a welcome change to my right hon. Friend compared with those that other people may occasionally make to him. Nevertheless, I think that we in the prosperous parts of the country have got to set the standards for the employment of young people which we hope that all parts of the country will grapple with in the future. We have got to provide not only a job and not only training but a mixture of the two, a career in which the young person starts and in which he will find fulfilment during the rest of his working life.
May I perhaps go a little wider, though, I hope, Mr. Speaker, without being out of order, and say what I think constitutes the makings of a career at the start for a young person. First of all, qualification; secondly, adventure; thirdly, independence; fourthly, experiment, and, fifthly, service. Qualifications in all forms of business and industrial activity are essential in these days when modern technology is producing new detailed problems which we have got to face.
I think that the White Paper on Industrial Training sketches a very wise and practical line which we can adopt and must see is adopted by industry in the future in its training of young people. But may I in these few minutes discuss


another aspect and another White Paper which I hope the Minister will be issuing in a few months' time and that is "Commercial training; the Government's proposals", because I do not believe that our business world and the world of commerce have begun to let the penny drop about their responsibility for training young people in the same way as have our industries. Young people entering industry are considered to be the responsibility of the firms which employ them, but it seems to me that young people entering the business and commercial world and the retail trade do not have the same impact on their employers.
In my constituency a great number of young men and young women are employed in business and commerce. Although I think that we have a responsibility for training girls, I do not think that it should be given the same priority as the training of young men to make their careers. I think that the training of girls must come lower down the scale. Luckily, no ladies are present to contradict me from a feminist point of view. I think that we must regard the training of young women for careers, with the exception perhaps of those with special qualifications and those who are dedicated to their jobs, as of less importance than the training of young men.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Why?

Mr. Page: Because young women who go into business, commerce, and industry, have their minds on marriage and bringing up a family, which they regard as extremely important, whereas the young man feels that it is his responsibility to keep the young woman of his choice in the state to which she has grown accustomed.

Mr. Wainwright: As the hon. Gentleman thinks Chat young women should not enter industry and commerce on the scale that young men do, will he state what proportion of young women he thinks ought to go into business, how many ought to go into industry, and how many ought to go into commerce, but who are not doing so because of the Government's failure to provide the necessary educational facilities?

Mr. Page: If I understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention correctly, the answer is that there are no young women in my constituency who are unable to get employment, though I think that there are some who are not able to get employment which provides them with the training they would like to have. I do not believe that it is possible to tackle the training of young men and young women on the same scale, at the same time; and if we have to do it bit by bit, I say that the training of young men is more important.

Mr. Finch: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance has ruled that a woman under the age of 50 who is left widowed is expected to find employment, and is not given a full pension because she is regarded as being fit for employment?

Mr. Page: I do not want to get involved in this, because I think that marginal cases are rather tricky to deal with. What about the young woman of 50, who has never married? She is also expected to look after herself. If a widow has no children to look after, I think that in many ways she is no less qualified than the unmarried woman who has been working for many years. As there are no hon. Ladies present I did not expect there to be this amount of heat and excitement, and I leave it there.
Very little training seems to be given by commercial firms to the young people who join them. Very few opportunities are provided for young people to take advantage of day-release schemes. It is interesting to note that in one year 255 people attended part-time day release business courses at Harrow Technical College, while 1,900 students attended the scientific and engineering courses. This shows that in my area, where many more people are employed in commerce than in engineering, only a very small proportion receive the kind of training they should receive.
The Government have issued a White Paper on industrial training. I hope that at some stage in the near future my right hon. Friend will introduce legislation similar to that envisaged in the White Paper in respect of commercial training, and will ensure that employers give their young employees the necessary training by means of day-release or sandwich


courses. Evening classes could play a large part in providing this training, but there is a falling off in the attendance at evening classes and the wastage figure is sometimes as high as 75 per cent. at the technical college whereas the fall-off in the number of those attending day-release courses is almost nil.
I do not believe that the heads of many commercial undertakings and many office managers have a clue about many of the qualifications that are available to young people who are employed in a clerical capacity, and which, if possessed by these youngsters, would make them much more valuable employees. There is a great fear—and there always has been but it has to a large extent been overcome in industry—that a firm cannot afford to let a young man attend day-release courses to improve his knowledge of the business. This is an extremely short-sighted policy, and I think that firms should encourage their young employees to improve their business and commercial knowledge by taking advantage of these courses.
In September, there is to be instituted the Certificate of Office Studies, which can be taken by all young people whether they have any O-levels in the G.C.E. or not. Starting in September, training for this certificate will be included in the curriculum of many colleges, and I hope that commercial and business firms will encourage their young clerical assistants to go in for this certificate. There is also the Retail Trade Certificate which is extremely valuable to those engaged in the retail trade organisation, but very few firms allow their young people to take advantage of it. There is also the ordinary National Certificate of Business Studies, which requires three O-level passes, which is not out of the reach of many school leavers, and it is pathetic to think that the opportunities which these young people have gained at school are not exploited to the full by allowing them to continue their education through business courses.
People over 16 can obtain certificates in works management, marketing, work study, office management, and organisation and methods. These certificates are not appreciated nearly as much as they should be by employers and I hope that my right hon. Friend, when speaking to industrialists and those engaged in

business, commerce, and the retail trades, will take the oportunity to tell them that they must raise their sights and improve the value of those who work for them.
I come now to deal with some of the things that go to make up a suitable career for a young person at a time of full employment, and I hope that hon. Members who represent constituencies where there is not full employment will not regard what I am saying as unnecessary. I said earlier that a young person must have qualifications and some adventure. I think that the first year after leaving school should be an adventure year for young people. They should be encouraged by their parents, and by their teachers, and to a certain extent by their employers, to take advantage of the freedom that they have and take part in some adventurous undertaking.
I would have thought that many parents with young boys in a place like Harrow would encourage their children to save, say, £50 and go off to America, Canada, or Europe to work in those countries and gain experience—because this kind of experience and adventurous outlook shown by young people improves them as employees of the future.

Mr. Dalyell: This suggestion has obviously not been thought out. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is now 18 per cent. unemployment in the United States. Does the hon. Member known anything about the labour laws in the United States?

Mr. Page: I happen to know a certain amount. I know that it is possible to obtain short-term permits to undertake jobs, especially if one is a young person. I have personal experience of many young people who have done this. The 17-year-old son of a neighbour of mine worked his way to America, hitch-hiked across America to California, and worked for nine months as a caddie on a golf course there. He came back to England £200 richer. That is quite legal, and it is the kind of thing that I would have thought the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—from the speeches that he has made—would have wished to encourage himself.
Then there must be independence. To me this means that it is extremely unwise for young people to contract into a


marriage before they are certain that their careers are on the lines they want them to be for the rest of their lives; othewise they are liable to find themselves with wives and children and unable to take advantage of the wish to experiment and change jobs, which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) rightly said was so wise and important. A young man ought to be able to try a number of different jobs before settling down and finally deciding on the course he wishes to follow.
Finally, there is service to the community. Surely this should be part of the training for the career of every young person leaving school. The Ministry of Labour could co-operate—as it already does, in many ways—with the Ministry of Education in order to see whether young people entering a business life can contribute more than they are at present in voluntary service to the community. At present not sufficient facilities are available for them to find a medium in which to give this service.
We believe that great opportunities are provided in this country. We do not say that it is necessary for young people to expect to find work on their own doorstep. Practically every young person in my constituency goes out of the area to his business. That should be encouraged. A little more adventure and experiment could be extremely helpful in enabling our young people to find jobs and better positions in the future.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The reason why I applaud the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) is that it envisaged the problem of unemployed young people as a moral problem—and a moral problem it is for our society.
The purpose of my contribution to the debate is to focus on some of the recommendations of the Feilden Committee on Engineering and Design. Mr. G. P. R. Feilden, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and his colleagues, Mr. S. H. Grylls, the Chief Engineer of the Rolls-Royce Motor-Car Division, Dr. de Malherbe, and Professor Saunders, Past-President of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, have produced a heavyweight report which is of considerable consequence to British industry in general and to areas where

school leavers may find it difficult to obtain work in particular.
Before offering any thoughts on the Feilden Report I should like to point out that if the Minister were able to wave a magic wand and say, "Tomorrow we will find work of a kind for all school leavers in this country", I should not be happy or satisfied. What Iask for is not merely a job for all school leavers, but a worth-while job. It is because it discusses the avenue to worth-while jobs that the Feilden Report is totally relevant to this debate.
There are two roads to the recruitment of designers, as paragraph 66 of the Report indicates. Half of the engineers who gave evidence thought that designers should go through a course for graduate engineers and another 50 per cent. felt that they should go through the traditional five years apprenticeship course. As for the graduate engineers, I shall confine myself to quoting the evidence which Sir John Baker, Professor of Mechanical Engineering in Cambridge, gave to the Feilden Committee. He said:
It is unrealistic to expect academic institutions to provide the whole mass of students with proper instruction in design.
Most, though, I am bound to say, not all the engineers to whom I have talked, have reservations about an academic atmosphere being the right atmosphere in which to train the majority of designers. Yet well-trained designers Britain must have, because exports depend on design, and the employment of school leavers bears a rather uncomfortably close relationship to the exports which we can maintain.
May I state concisely, first, what the Feilden Committee feels to be amiss? First, the Committee refers to the lack of attention to detail in British designing in almost all fields of mechanical engineering design. I refer, in particular, to the evidence given to the Committee by Sir Christopher Hinton. Detail work, thought Sir Christopher,
is best done by engineering designers who have served a five-year apprenticeship, a great part of this being done on the shop floor…
He stressed that he referred to those who had reached the design office by promotion from the drawing office. It was his opinion that the trouble arose from


the fact that there were not now enough people who had had this training to staff detail design offices. Whatever we may think of Sir Christopher Hinton and the Central Electricity Generating Board, Sir Christopher's opinion is a heavyweight one. He is one of our leading mechanical engineers.
The second question that concerned the Feilden Committee is referred to in paragraph 41, which draws attention to
The incomplete education and training of draughtsmen and technicians who compose the staff of detail design offices.
This can be said, fairly and squarely, to be one of the results of the shortage of teachers of mathematics and technical drawing in our schools.
At a later stage in the educational process the evidence of the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department to the Feilden Committee was of the need for draughtsmen to have some understanding of the particulars of design. They said—this is the view of the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department, it is not a propaganda leaflet—
As yet, little is done in the courses of technical education which the students follow to develop such an understanding.
The third thing which particularly worried the Feilden Committee is that much is left to evening classes and to day-release classes. For the last three or four years I have been extremely cynical about the value of evening classes. In the circumstances of the 1960s I do not think that they do very much good. And I am becoming very suspicious, from what I have read and, much more, from personal contact, about the value of day release. I think that day release is too often haphazard.
Perhaps Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are too often satisfied to hear satisfactory statistics about day release without going into detail about what happens on the courses. The view of many young people is that, somehow, they are very unsatisfactory.
Having said this, I find the Feilden Committee substantiated it. The Report states:
It is already evident that the full value of the new courses cannot be obtained through evening work, or even through the orthodox forms of clay release.

Mr. John Page: Is that in connection with highly technical people or the less high level intellectual? Is the hon. Gentleman talking about top designers?

Mr. Dalyell: That is a fair intervention. I am not talking about the graduate engineer "high flyers". I am concerned with the average 16- to 18-year-old.
The Feilden Committee began to wonder about day release. I am talking about technicians in the design scheme and I think that hon. Members would agree that the technician is a critical link. He is responsible for the bulk of the work in successfully implementing designs and the details of them. How then does the Feilden Committee provide the remedy and make it possible to train the very large number of competent technicians that are required?
The first set of recommendations boil down to basic education, particularly education for change, because only one thing can be certain about the 15-year-olds of today, It is that over their working lives, which after all will extend to 2013 and 2014, they will have to retrain not once, but many times. This involves having a basic education to allow them to change several times.
The Feilden Report quotes the very sorry story of the North British Locomotive Factory, in Glasgow, with which I have considerable personal familiarity; the way in which there was delay in taking the necessary step from steam to diesel. When the change was actually forced on the factory there was no tradition and little experience in precision engineering because the staff and labour was "steam-minded" and had not the equipment with which to change. From this there are three immediate educational steps to be taken in areas of persistent unemployment.
First, there should be full-time courses in advanced institutes of designs, and for heaven's sake let us take the attitude that people are not "too old at 20" to have this sort of retraining.
Secondly, there should be very much more emphasis on sandwich courses. Here there is a difficulty. Not unnaturally, technical colleges wish to have most of their pupils during the winter months and, equally, firms are a little unhappy about taking those on sandwich courses—who will not contribute very much to


the work of the firm—during the summer months because so many are an holiday. This is a physical problem which the Ministry might lookat because there are problems about sandwich courses. At this stage I come down heavily in favour of block release rather than day release.
Thirdly, I quote from the Feilden Report:
As far as we are able to discover no effort is being applied to the development of visual aids and teaching machines to the teaching of mechanical engineering which, in view of the shortage of teachers, is surprising.
I wish to ask the Minister, why not? Given that we have this shortage of teachers in this technical subject, why is not something being done to make use of the latest aids? I am not asking as an individual Member of Parliament. This is the opinion of the unbiased Feilden Committee and when such a Committee draws attention to the problem it is a weighty matter.
Another possible remedy is the very interesting suggestion of the Feilden Committee about development contracts, Government purchasing and Government development contracts of all kinds. The Committee wants the Government to give contracts to firms which undertake to train design teams and apprentices properly. This would give the Government an opportunity to influence firms, because if contracts are to be given, not on bankers' criteria, but on the criteria of which firm is really making an effort to train these young people for the future, that in itself would be a tremendous incentive to firms to run proper apprenticeship schemes.
It would mean setting up—probably at the Board of Trade—a small team to tour the country and discover which firms are in the lead in running apprenticeship schemes. Government Departments, from the Post Office to the Ministry of Aviation, which have to deal with purchasing could be told where they should place their orders on the criteria of which firm is doing the most to help young people and research.
I with to quote from paragraph 129 of the Feilden Report:
The system of Government financial control makes it very difficult for the Admiralty

to break the normal policy of accepting the cheaper tenders for a contract rather than that of the best technical solution for the operator's requirements. It would probably be to the benefit of the country as a whole for the Admiralty to support firms with comparatively high overheads resulting from their own research and development costs, apprentice training scheme, etc., rather than those firms who can produce the cheapest products because their contribution in the research and development field is small. In the light of this it might well pay the Admiralty and the country to give more for a product incorporating the fruits of research work and thus encourage better design.
The fact is that the lowest tender is likely to be based on less research to allow for less development and to be more prone to failure and is, therefore, unlikely to be the best overall solution so far as Britain is concerned. Who is the source of the trouble? Why does this happen? It is an easy temptation to put the whole blame at the door of the Minister. Although I should say he is partly to blame for this sort of thing failing to happen, it would not be right to put the whole blame at his door.
Other candidates for blame might be the civil servants of the Treasury. Some of us are very unhappy about decision-making in the Treasury. Yet again, I think that it would be rather unfair to put any large portion of the blame there, but that is a point in our machine of Government about which I am extremely unhappy.
Some blame must reside in the activities of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. I feel able to say this because I happen to be a member of that Committee. I am as guilty as anyone of putting questions before the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Treasury witnesses to the accounting officers, to the permanent heads of the Civil Service, to this effect, "What are you doing to save candle-ends here? What are you doing to save candle-ends there?" I have been uneasily aware of this for some time.
Perhaps it is not the right question which one should be asking. The question which I think my colleagues and I on the Public Accounts Committee should be asking the Permanent Secretaries of the Civil Service when they come before us should be rather more like this, "When awarding such and such a contract, what inquiries did you make about the facilities for training young people properly in that particular firm?"
That is a rather hypothetical question to put. It does not lend itself to the easy straightforward questions and answers which the Public Accounts Committee usually expects, but we have a situation where accounting officers and Permanent Secretaries can say to their Ministers, "We have to justify to the Public Accounts Committee that we save the taxpayer the most money we can. What else can we do other than go to the firm which offers the lowest tender? We cannot take other considerations, however worthy, into our thinking without breaking the rules."
This is a very awkward position into which to put the heads of the Civil Service, the capitalists who actually act as custodians of public funds.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. I would have raised this point had I been called, but it is important to get it right while the hon. Member is speaking. He is on an important point, but I wonder whether he realises this? If we were to suggest to the Government that they should give contracts only to firms which have good training facilities, in the present situation the only firms which already have good training facilities, and which would be getting all the contracts, or most of them, are the biggest and best firms. This would cut right across the diversification of industry and the taking of new industry to Scotland and elsewhere to help areas of high unemployment, because many firms in those areas are new and small and have not yet developed training facilities.

Mr. Dalyell: It would be rather difficult to deny that the hon. Member's intervention had any truth in it. Of course, it has some truth and force in it, but this is a matter of judgment. I think that one of the effects of my kind of question to the P.A.C. would be to make firms which can afford to do so to surge ahead with training schemes. I do not see any other way of getting many rich firms which are letting the community down, to fulfil their moral obligation to young people. I do not see how otherwise those firms could be forced to do what the community wants, in its best overall interests.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Perhaps it would be as well if, with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), firms making contributions to central research associations and to general scientific and technological research through their operations should also qualify.

Mr. Dalyell: It would be easy to give an unreserved answer of "Yes" to that point, but one would have to think through it. My only worry about that suggestion is that it might be very complicated indeed for the administrative machine. As I say, it is a suggestion which would have to be studied and one cannot give an answer in depth "off the cuff". In sum, to help school leavers I leave with the Minister three basic suggestions.
First, to look at education not only in mathematics but also in technical drawing, education for change, and particularly the use which can be made of teaching machines in a subject such as design and technical drawing, which lends itself to sequential steps. That is the important thing about teaching machines and why it is sensible to put them forward as a priority, in this context.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to look at the use of Government contracts to firms with perhaps the highest overheads but certainly doing the most research and with the best apprenticeship schemes.
Thirdly, I ask him to consider with some of his colleagues in the Government the function of the Public Accounts Committee, and to ask whether the members of that Committee are asking accounting officers the right questions. He should ask whether it may not be possible for the members of that Committee to put the sort of semi-hypothetical question which would allow accounting officers to justify themselves in terms of giving contracts to those firms which perhaps put in the highest tenders but which would take the interests of young people and their training to heart.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I do not wish to follow either the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) or my hon. Friend the


Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) in dealing with training and commercial matters, except to add to my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian, who was on a very important point. I think that we could influence training through Government contracts, but I should not do it in quite the way he suggested. Rather I should say to firms which are anxious to get Government contracts that there will be no question of them not getting contracts because they do not have a training scheme, but that the Government would certainly look with favour on any future contracts once they had such schemes and developed good training schemes, because there is no doubt that that is what we want.
This is an important subject. It represents the bloodstream of our industrial prosperity. I was interested the other day to notice coming from the Ministry a circular which pointed to British successes in an international apprenticeship competition. I suppose that if it had been a model competition it would have received a large amount of publicity, but in fact it got very little. I think the House would be glad to commend all those young people, four of whom were awarded gold medals, six silver medals and six bronze medals, in the international apprenticeship competition recently held in Dublin. That is an example of the kind of skill we need. We need quality of skill with quantity. This, without doubt, will be the means by which the country can go forward in the 'seventies.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred to an Answer I had to a Question the other day, and also an Answer which he had to a Question, dealing with skilled manpower. I thought the reply of the Minister was well as far as it went, but I certainly support the hon. Member in his suggestion that we ought to be thinking in terms of a manpower budget. I wondered from the reply to my Question whether the Ministry was entirely on the right lines. I realise that a research unit looking at the metal industries—and then, as has been suggested, into the construction industries—isan undertaking which is quite formidable. Nevertheless, if one is thinking in terms of the expansion of certain industries and the

contraction of certain other industries, one ought to take the research into industries across the board rather than deal with one, then another and then another, since one may find out at one and the same time both the industries which will expand and the industries which will contract. This is something which my hon. Friend might consider.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North has left the Chamber. I intended to take him up on what I thought was rather a critical speech. I thought that he had tried, and not succeeded very well, to prove failure on the part of the Government, and that he was led into much gross exaggeration. He said that it seemed that the Government were getting away with it up to 1961 and that we were being successful. I almost got the impression that he wished that we had failed.
If we look at the figures of the number of school-leavers since Easter this year, and the fact that at mid-June all but 32,000 of them, out of the 142,000, had found jobs, although there is no room for complacency, especially in the bad areas in Scotland, the North-East and the North-West, we get a better picture. In the bad areas, I realise, there is a problem.
Nevertheless, it is fair to remind the Opposition of one important factor which has not been mentioned today—that we no longer have National Service in this country. In 1948, 151,000 young people were on call-up. In 1952, it was 170,000; and even as recently as 1960 it was 55,000. The call-up is now at an end, and yet even in 1960 the number called up was greater than the number who are without jobs today.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North selected his figures, and it is very easy to select figures in support of my right hon. Friend and in opposition to him. The fact remains that we have the bulge and also the cessation of National Service, and this must have its effect. Yet we still have, on average throughout the country, a comparatively few young people who cannot find jobs. In 1950, when hon. Members opposite were hi office, we had the highest call-up figure in the whole of the post-war years—174,200; and yet, even then, there were 10,000 unemployed people under 18. Of course, the situation is one about which we have to concern


ourselves, but looking at the nation as a whole we find that there are more vacancies for boys than there are unemployed boys; there are 57,500 vacancies and 32,900 unemployed. The situation as a whole is not as bad as it is painted.
In the northern part of the country 12 per cent. of our young people have not yet found jobs. I believe that this is concerned fundamentally with the mobility of labour. In the north of England the figure is 12 per cent.; in the London area it is 0·9 per cent.; in the eastern area and in the South, 1·2 per cent.; in the Midlands, 1·3 per cent.; and in Scotland, 3·4 per cent. How do we close the gap between the areas which have high unemployment among young people and those which have very low unemployment? It is a similar problem to the national problem of unemployment as a whole.
When we think in terms of 350,000 school leavers this summer, the position may get worse regionally, Nevertheless, I believe that in the short term it is a problem of mobility. Certainly, in the long term it is necessary to get industries into these bad areas and to relieve the pressures on labour in the South. That is necessary from both a social and an economic point of view. For it is not good that there should be areas which are prosperous and areas which are depressed. But we cannot put that right in a few months or even in a year or two.

Mr. Bence: In ten years?

Mr. Lewis: I expected that kind of intervention, and it is a fair intervention, but I remind the hon. Member that it is just two years ago that we were so prosperous in this country that the Opposition could not even win a Labour-held seat in a by-election.

Mr. Bence: That is not true of Scotland.

Mr. Lewis: That was the situation two years ago, and the hon. Member cannot expect that a Government will anticipate the kind of run-down which we had last year, when two years ago we were in a boom. The situation which we have at the moment was thrust upon us in the last eighteen months.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Member talks about the distribution of prosperity in

the country and the depressed areas. We have had the highest unemployment—that is, in Scotland—since 1951. We have had it for twelve years.

Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Member looks back he will find that during the period in which we have been in office we have been taking action to try to get new industries into Scotland. This programme is going forward now. But we are dealing in the debate, in particular, with unemployment among young people, and even in Scotland it is only 3·4 per cent.

Mr. John Robertson: I have been trying to follow the hon. Member's argument. He told us that the problem was one of mobility and pointed to the low unemployment rate in London and the Midlands. Does he suggest that boys and girls aged 15, 16 and 17 should be sent down from the north of England and from Scotland to London?

Mr. Lewis: I am coming to that. In the long term we must get industries into those areas. But in the short term what must be done? We must get mobility, just as much among young people as among older people. While we are waiting for the factories and for the jobs, and for the board rooms to take action to go North, we must get these people jobs of skill. Hon. Members may disagree with this.

Dr. Bray: The hon. Member said that we must get young people jobs in Scotland. May I quote an example with which I had to deal in my constituency? A time-served instrument artificer, a highly skilled trade, was declared redundant on Tees-side and was offered a job in Slough. He went there and found a more attractive offer by Fords, at Dagenham, and he is now lost to skilled work altogether. Is the hon. Member satisfied with that?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member is suggesting that the Government are to blame because a young man goes from Middlesbrough to London, gets a job, and then decides to change it. I understood a few minutes ago that hon. Members opposite were arguing for a choice of jobs. The hon. Member's constituent had a choice, and made it.

Dr. Bray: Was it in the national interest?

Mr. Lewis: It was in the interest presumably of the young man. On this side of the House we do not determine the national interest by the direction of labour.

Dr. Bray: He had no choice on Tees-side.

Mr. Lewis: When young men cannot get jobs in their own areas, they should be encouraged to go to areas where jobs are available. My right hon. Friend knows that I have always said this. Boys who lose the opportunity to gain skills because of a temporary situation, because of a rundown in certain areas, will think ill of society, unless we do something about it. We often hear about people having chips on their shoulders. We do not often ask why they have got them. All kinds of social problems arise out of young men coming out of school and floundering about for a year being unable to get into jobs which will provide opportunities for them later in life. They become frustrated, through no fault of theirs.
I want to suggest a means by which this problem can be solved. The Minister is already doing a great deal. He has started Government training centres. He has 560 places up to the end of this year. I believe that next year there will be over 800 places. Hon. Members opposite may be surprised to learn that 560 places represent exactly one-quarter of the number of young people in Scotland and in the north-east of England at present looking for skilled jobs. This is not a bad contribution to the solution of the problem.
My right hon. Friend will have seriously to consider whether he should extend the period of training in Government training centres beyond a year. This may be necessary if young men leaving the centres are unable to continue their training elsewhere. On the whole question of mobility, I have already raised with my right hon. Friend the possibility of making weekend travel vouchers available to boys who come down to the Midlands from the North. It is understandable that 16-year olds are not easily released by their parents. If the parents knew that the boys would come home regularly at weekends, and if the boys were given grants for staying in a hostel, they might well get opportunities and

jobs which at this moment would not be available in their own areas. If hon. Members opposite think that this is not a workable solution, I would remind them that not so long ago youngsters almost a young were entering National Service. I accept that if boys so young did leave home they would have to be properly cared for.
It is understandable in a free society that any Government find it difficult to compel action. However, I do not think that this in itself is a good argument for the Government doing nothing where industry is at fault or where trade unions are at fault. The people will not be happy if we accept such a situation. The Government are already doing a great deal, but when there are clearly faults at management or director level or where there are faults in the trade unions it is important that my right hon. Friend, sometimes using a little compulsion, should try to eradicate some of the faults.
If quality is desired in quantity of training, there must be penalties for those who fail in their duty. What are the duties as we go into the Seventies? There are many faults at both management and trade union level. They are the underlying reason why some young people have difficulty in obtaining jobs and also getting a choice of job. Too many industrial managements do not train anybody. They live on the training of others. They could well afford to train. Too many managements, when there is a rundown in prosperity, too easily shed young men who are training with them, or refuse to take on others and cut their apprentice intake. Too many firms which plan their finance, their advertising, and their future sales programme, clearly engage in no planning whatsoever for their skill.
The trade unions are not without fault. For years both sides of the House have accepted that many apprenticeships could be reduced from five years to four years, but little has been done about it. There has been a small dent. I hope that the House realises that, if five-year apprenticeships were cut to four, the intake would be increased by one-fifth.

Mr. Bence: Nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all. It would mean that the apprentice became a journeyman


more quickly. Within the firm's quota there would be a further inflow at the end of the period.
We hear from time to time that some parts of our society enjoy privileges not enjoyed by others. It is often said that it is difficult to get into Eton and that to get there a boy's name must be put down before he is born. It is as difficult to obtain an apprenticeship in the printing industry as it is to get into what is said to be the best public school in the land. For a number of years I sat on a youth employment committee. Year after year we were requested to submit names of young men to go into the printing industry. We always put forward a list of well qualified young men. None was selected. The truth is that in the printing unions there is a system of self-perpetuation. If a young man is a relative of someone in the printing industry, he gets in. If a young man is a friend of someone in the industry, he gets in. If he is not, he is not permitted to go in.
At management and trade union level there are impediments to getting more skill which are built up over the years. We all know them. For years we have been talking about dealing with that. There has been such talk as long as the Tories have been in office. There was such talk probably during the period of the Labour Government. It is time we did something about them. The Government are doing their best. My right hon. Friend has made a considerable contribution, and I believe that when his training Bill is introduced the country will appreciate the extent of the contribution he has made to the solution of this problem.
As a boy I used to spend some of my holidays fishing in Scotland, in a lake in a small village.

Mr. J. Robertson: The hon. Member did not.

Mr. Lewis: Not a lake; a loch.
In any case, a year or two ago I went back and found that the stream—

Mr. Bence: Stream?

Mr. Lewis: —the loch—had more or less dried up. The lake—[Hon. Members: "No."]—the loch was a good deal smaller than I remembered it as a boy and very few fish remained in it. I mention this to illustrate that if we do

not get the skill to project Britain into the seventies, if our stream of skill dries up, there can be no question that our lake of productivity will cease to flow and we will not get the productivity we so badly need. Today's debate will have been important if only for the fact that it has made clear to the Minister, management and trade unions the vital importance of making the best use of our young people and the skills they achieve.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: I believe that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) has had a considerable amount of experience in industry as a labour officer. Having listened to his speech, I can understand why, on occasions, trade unions show signs of frustration and irritation. The hon. Member is so far removed from the realities, of the situation that it is hardly necessary for me to comment on his remarks. With only one point he raised will I deal; that of shortened apprenticeships, but I will come to that later.
It is unfortunate that the debate has tended to dwell too much on training rather than employment, and I will attempt to bring hon. Members back to the latter. I wish, first, to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) on making an excellent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing him frequently in future.
The Minister was right to emphasise that youth employment is of prime importance to north-east Scotland. Last May, there were more than 8,000 boys and girls under 18 registered as wholly unemployed in Scotland. This number did not include school leavers, so the number of wholly unemployed was much greater than 8,000. I was amazed to hear the Minister suggest that the picture was improving. "After all, look at the absorption of school leavers," he said, in effect.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the problem of youth unemployment, particularly in Scotland, has never been one concerning the unemployment of school leavers. Unfortunately, unemployment mainly occurs after the first, perhaps temporary job. This aspect of youth unemployment appears to be


beyond the understanding of the Ministry. I read the minutes of the meeting of a local youth employment committee the other day in which the importance of realising where school leavers fit into the unemployment pattern was brought out.
During the six months up to June this year the number of apprenticeships in Scotland dropped from 39 per cent. to 35 per cent. A remarkable figure is the number of young people under 18 who are drawing National Assistance. Unfortunately, the number is increasing and this pattern reveals the problem of youth unemployment in Scotland. But it does not tell the whole story. The kind of job and training given to a young person now is of supreme importance. We need to assess the future needs of industry, not only in terms of the number of staff required but the skill required of them.
While examining the details of apprenticeships, I discovered the other day that apprenticeships are still being given in wooden wagon building. These wagons are no longer being built and the apprentices in this trade, apart from repairing the existing ones, are serving an apprenticeship for a trade that, even from the repairing point of view, will not exist within five or six years. This shows how important it is to think of the future when considering the skills to be taught to young people.
When people talk in terms of there being a quick growth of industry in Scotland, I wonder whether they realise, particularly the Minister, what tremendous staffing problems such a growth would mean. I hope that that growth will occur, but I wonder how many skilled people we would have to import to man these industries; how much increased wages would be required to attract from London and the Midlands the skills we have unfortunately been exporting from Scotland over the past fifteen years.
The subject of training for industry has become a fashionable one in recent years, just as automation was a year or two ago. More nonsense is talked about it than anything else. It seems that everyone is an expert on the subject of training for industry, except the people who have been trained. Everyone has had his say,

except those most vitally concerned. It is time that the balance was redressed. We must face the future both from the point of view of training and staffing and accept a fairly optimistic forecast of future economic productivity. I have in mind the rather staggering estimate which has been given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the number of new jobs which will be required in the next ten years if Britain is to keep pace with other industrialised countries.
No one will deny that the method adopted so far to secure the adequate recruitment and training of a suitable labour force has been remarkably haphazard and inefficient. It has been related to present and not future requirements. Despite this, I would go so far as to say that the British apprenticeship system is not only unequalled in the world but, particularly in Scotland, has and will continue to produce the best craftsmen. It is not that training has been inadequate, but that aptitudes, abilities and skills have been squandered at an alarming rate. In my day, the moment a lad's time was out, he was finished. We got our books with our pay—we were out of a job. In Scotland, even today, thousands of time-served men are doing unskilled or semi-skilled jobs.
It is useless saying that there are jobs in Edinburgh that would suit a young Glasgow journeyman, unless there is housing accommodation for him in Edinburgh. I remember an Edinburgh professor of sociology saying that it was more difficult to transfer people from the west of Scotland to the east of Scotland than it was to transfer them from Glasgow to London. That was very true, because housing accommodation was more easily obtainable down here than it was in any part of Scotland. Mobility of labour and the jobs people take are often more related to circumstances outside industry than to the number of jobs available in other parts.
This squandering of skill is partly due to our educational system. We already have far too many examinations. We are doing away with the 11-plus, but we find that some people appear to be examination-mad, and want examinations for technicians, craftsmen and operatives. I sometimes think that the only fellow


who has been able to escape so far is the fellow with the hod or the barrow—and we might even be getting examinations for him.
Is it really necessary to have all these status symbols? In my days in industry there were only two kinds of engineers—the good engineer and the one with a certificate. It was always thought that the one with a certificate needed something by way of proof, but the best proof of the pudding is in the eating, and a good craftsman was obvious as soon as he set to work. Let us ease off the examinations a little. If we get rid of the worry of the 11-plus, do not let us put something else in its place. Let us have some pity.
It is not easy to get the right school leaver into the right job, and I would not be happy if it were left to the educationalist to assess pupils before they left school and determined where they were to work, thereby denying anyone a choice or a chance. We want to get rid of that kind of thinking altogether. We should evolve a system by which all young people enter industry in a common stream and are then allowed to find their own level, becoming technicians, craftsmen, operatives, or whatever it might be.
That would mean a radical change in our present methods of recruitment. As things are, it is not the ability or wish of the young person that determines his employment. There is the question of location. No matter what his mechanical bent, a boy born in Oban, Inverness or Wick has a very slim chance of becoming an engineer. In the old days, provision was made for the apprenticeship of lads from the Highlands, and although there was not a mass exodus of unemployed Highland youth there were always plenty of Highlanders in the industrial belt of Scotland.
Location, the needs of industry at the time and, very often, the trade or profession of the parent will frequently determine the young person's job. It is wrong to suggest that boys and girls of 15, 16 and 17 are mobile and can be sent to jobs at the other end of the country. What we have read about and heard about in the last few months should have made the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford hesitate before suggesting that. For at least the first three years in industry, young folk require the home

influence; they need guidance there as well as in industry.
As long as there are sufficient jobs, there is nothing wrong in local industry determining the kind of job a young person will lake, but in some areas there is no hope whatever of young people, irrespective of their abilities, finding suitable work or getting the training to fit them for skilled work. What chance has a boy or girl in the Highland areas of getting into a skilled job when more than 2,000 people under 18 years of age in Glasgow are looking for work?
The present situation in Scotland illustrates some of the nonsense talked about youth employment. During the current year, rather more than 80,000 Scottish boys and girls, will leave school, of whom about 68,000 will be under 16 years old and will not have gone beyond a third year in school. There will be 53,000 of them who have sat non-certificate courses. Of this year's school leavers, 25,000 will have attended senior secondary schools on 4-year and 5-year examination courses but will have left before the fourth year. During the next year, between 75,000 and 79,000 school leavers will be looking for jobs as manual cur clerical workers.
Last year, out of 83,000 school leavers, 72,000 entered employment. The remarkable thing is that that should represent 11 per cent. of the total number of school leavers entering employment in Great Britain, though the Scottish employed labour force is only 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom labour figure. That means that a much higher proportion of young people are being employed in Scottish industry than elsewhere, although the proportion may be as large in some parts of England.
It is worth pointing out also that 30,000 boys and girls secured employment leading; to a skilled job, and 4,400 entered employment requiring a minimum of one year's training; but 36,880 entered employment requiring no training whatever. This is a much higher proportion than in any other part of the country.
Moreover, the distributive trades absorbed 23,000 boys and girls last year. This was ore-tenth of the total labour force in this trade in Scotland. If we carry on at this rate, the labour force in


the distributive trades will either double in ten years or be replaced in ten years. It is 15 per cent. of the number entering the same employment in Great Britain. It is noteworthy, also, that there were 48,000 people signing on as wholly unemployed who were registered as having been employed in the distributive trades during that period.
What does this mean? Of course, the expression "distributive trades" can cover a multitude of things—the boy who goes round delivering milk or newspapers, or almost anything. To give some idea of the figures of the other trades, 3,500 school leavers went into agriculture, that is, 14 per cent. of the Great Britain total. Textiles had 17 per cent. of the Great Britain total, the proportion for girls being 21 per cent.
In engineering, there is a different picture;2,478 boys and 906 girls found work in engineering, representing 7 per cent. and 6 per cent. of the total number entering the engineering industry in Great Britain during that time. Only the northern, south-western and Wales regions had fewer entrants into the industry.
In Scotland, engineering, shipbuilding and the vehicle industry took 9 per cent. of our apprentices, which means that Scotland was doing not too badly, but in all industries we had 11 per cent. of apprenticeships. Again, there is this rather peculiar disparity. It can be explained by the intake into the distributive trades and construction. In London, engineering took 3,301 apprentices and in Scotland it took 1,809 apprentices, but construction in London took 3,651 apprentices and in Scotland it took 3,603. The distributive trades, on the other hand, took 922 apprentices in London and 2,065 in Scotland. There is a tremendous difference there, and this is the reason why we can show a better figure, since so many more of those going into the distributive trades are given the title "apprentice". One wonders whether it is a real apprenticeship which they serve.
For agriculture, forestry and fishing, one would imagine that England and the South would not do so well, but they are not doing so badly, with 143 apprentices. Scotland took 252 apprentices. Shipbuilding in London took 331

apprentices and in the whole of Scotland it took 598. So we do relatively worse than any other part of the country in this respect, too.
I have risked boring the House with these figures to make one point. The problems associated with youth employment and training are so markedly different in different parts of the country that a uniform approach to them will not produce uniform solutions. Relative to the rest of Great Britain, Scotland has a disproportionate number of people in the important age-group from 15 to 21. Scotland does not have sufficient of the newer expanding industries to provide suitable jobs for young people.
Moreover, the usual pattern of learner-ship and apprenticeship means that thousands of young people who could reasonably be expected to undertake training for skilled occupations are condemned to unskilled work. It is particularly in this respect, the large numbers going into dead-end jobs who have the ability to undertake training for skills, that the great wastage of skill takes place. Once they have gone into dead-end jobs, there is very little hope of young people ever acquiring skills in any trade or profession.
The pattern of employment in Scotland is conditioned by one aspect of migration which has not been sufficiently recognised in connection with the employment of young people. During the past ten years, Scotland has lost annually about 50,000 insured workers and has taken in about 35,000 insured workers, but what cannot be assessed is the loss of skill during that time. If trade union records are any guide, the truth is that half the people going out are skilled and a quarter coming in are skilled. This leaves Scotland with a disproportionate number of semi-skilled adult workers.
It is probable that this accounts for the very low number of non-apprenticed boys entering engineering in Scotland. In London and the South-East, the total intake last year was 8,617 of whom 40 per cent. were apprentices. In Scotland, the total intake into engineering was 2,478, of whom 72 per cent. were apprentices. This does not mean that London was taking in too few apprentices, but it means that Scotland was not taking in


enough boys to trades other than those requiring apprenticeship. The reason is that there are so many semi-skilled people available. The supply of adult semi-skilled labour is such that there is no need to train young people.
This illustrates the point that the number of young people which an industry can absorb is related to the employment situation generally and the character of the labour force. If, at a time when unemployment is serious, the Government plan to train adult labour to move from one industry to another, the result is that there are fewer jobs for young people, and, of course, this becomes particularly important at a time when the Government are proposing to build training establishments in Lanarkshire, for instance, where there are already unemployed engineering workers.
In engineering, the ratio of semi skilled and unskilled people to skilled people is 60 per cent. unskilled and semi skilled and 40 per cent. skilled. Why, then, is there such a low intake of young people into the semi-skilled sector of engineering in Scotland? The semiskilled sector of engineering, that which does not require apprenticeship, offers a way out of the dead-end job and gives a better chance to those who start, in the first place, in the distributive trades. If the Minister intends to proceed with training railway men and miners to go into industry, he is blocking an avenue of escape from the dead-end job. He must bear that in mind. There is considerable recruitment of men over 18 into the engineering industry in this way.
Now, a word about the period of apprenticeship. If industry can absorb any more people by way of a three-year apprenticeship, it can absorb the extra people even with a five-year apprenticeship. Of that, there is no doubt at all. Where industry is expanding there has never been any problem about the ratio of apprentices but where jobs are scarce, and the choice is between an apprentice and a tradesman, the trade union will start objecting. If the further employment of young people means that men will lose their jobs, there will be objection and, of course, the men will attempt to impose a limitation. But as long as industry has been expanding there has never been a problem.
A problem which has arisen is that of reducing apprenticeship to three or to four years. There is no quarrel about the question of training. The quarrel is about cash. What shall we pay an apprentice after his three-year apprenticeship? Shall we pay him less than the journeyman? Is this not a five years' apprenticeship under a different name? Is that not what it is? What is the good of employing a journeyman and paying him a fourth-year apprentice's wages? We hear so much about the continental system. What we do not hear is that this is one of the features of it. There is the three-year training and then he has still to work for an apprentice's wages. The trade unions will not agree to pay a journeyman an apprentice's wages, but if the employers are prepared to pay the proper wages, then unionists are prepared—and they have said so—to reduce the period of apprenticeship.
Another thing which the unions have done—and more credit should be given to my own union—is the experiment at Stow College, where apprentices are serving the first three years entirely at the college. The unions are on the point of agreeing that one year beyond the age of 16 in any school will count towards an apprenticeship. I said that the unions are on the point of agreeing this. It is the employers who are making the difficulty about it, not the unions. It has been the employers who have been holding it up. Why? Because so many employers look upon an apprentice as one from whom they will get production at lesser wages. We say that it is not true of good employers, but there are very many employers who are not so good, and who very often influence the thinking of employers' associations. These are the facts.
In Scotland, we have always had an adequate number of apprentices. In fact, we have really been the training area for the Midlands and the South-East. The shortages of skilled people in Scotland have not arisen because of failure to train people, but because, having been trained, they have gone to look for work in the south of England. What we have got to ask ourselves in relation to training in Scotland is; should we train our young people for export? Can we give apprenticeships without regard to the employment position? Should we train our young people


for skilled work which they will not find in Scotland? This is really the problem. Of course, the answer we give to this must determine what action we shall take.
We have got to make up our minds about this one point. What is to determine policy? Is it the needs of industry, or the best interests of the young people themselves? If it is the young people we are really concerned about, then we have to train them quite apart from the needs of industry and quite apart from industry itself. We have to look upon apprenticeship as a continuation of the period of education. We have got to provide full apprenticeship training completely out with industry.
Obviously, members of trade unions will not like that; in fact, they will resist it very strenuously unless they can be assured that such a system will not jeopardise the jobs of the journeymen. It can only be done in a period when industry is expanding sufficiently to take in everyone—when there are jobs for everyone.
I have said to trade unionists, and I say again in this place, that members of trade unions should remember that we are not discussing someone else's children, that the children we are discussing are their children, and it is necessary that everyone should be trained according to his ability and aptitude.
I know that it will be difficult for trade unionists to accept the word of this Government. I can appreciate their hesitation. I do not suggest that this will solve all our problems of unemployment and the frustration of dead-end jobs. The real solution lies in having a Government who believe in expansion and in a proper distribution of industry. I have always been convinced that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with the details of his office, but I have found him less convincing when he has tried to argue the economic case, and I am afraid that we shall find no solution to this problem of youth employment till this Government clear out and let in another who believe in industrial expansion. When we solve the problem of unemployment we shall solve the problems of training and youth employment.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I hope the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) will forgive me if I do not follow him down all the avenues in this immense subject he has explored at considerable length. I am well aware—we all are—of the high importance of this subject. Having sat here all afternoon and knowing that other hon. Members wish to speak, having originally prepared a speech in two sections I shall discard one of them and say what I have to say as quickly and snappily as possible.
However, I should like to make a very brief comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Paisley. He asked whether we should serve primarily the interests of young people or of industry. I would say without hesitation that the interests of the young people and of industry are synonymous. He talked of the squandering of skill and rather deplored the fact that there were to be more examinations in future. I would not accept for a moment that examination is overdone. It certainly will not be so in the future. It will be an essential qualification for employment. We should encourage the young people to get the necessary qualifications.
The problems of youth employment, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly said, do vary from one area of the country to another, and it is probably appropriate that I should follow a Scottish Member in that, as he quite rightly said, the two areas in the country where youth training is most important at this time are Scotland and the north-east of England. With 350,000 young people due to emerge from the schools this week, the problem of youth employment will be no greater anywhere than it is in my own area, the North-East. There are many things on which there is full agreement on both sides of this House, and there cannot be any subject on which there is greater agreement than this, that we do not wish to see our young people, particularly, standing against a blank wall idle, and we are all eager to see an end to the frustrations, irritation and the attendant evils associated with standing on the corner without any employment. The feeling of being unwanted in society is an awful frustration.
I have a proposal to make. Why not a special youth employment service for


the development areas? Industrial training is the responsibility of industry primarily. The Carr Report made this point. I fully agree with it. It has been suggested over and over again during this debate that there should be centralised control of training, but it is primarily the responsibility of industry. I am convinced myself, having visited many industrial concerns on Tyneside in the past few years, that industry knows what it will require in the way of skills—the sort of skills, the sort of people, it will require—in the years which lie ahead. It has a better idea about this than anyone else. I am all for the encouragement of industry to train its own technical skills. I would suggest, therefore, that we might well think very seriously indeed about subsidising the training of skill.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who has now left his place made the not unreasonable suggestion that there might be established in the Board of Trade a new section which could be sent out to industrial areas to find out what industrial concerns are doing most about training within their own concerns. I can tell him from my own experience that the industry that is doing the most training is the industry that can afford to do so. Training is extremely expensive. The hon. Member for East expensive in so much industry. He Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, quite correctly, that apprenticeship figures are falling. It is becoming more and more particularised agriculture. He is certainly correct there, but he would be correct in many other industries if he had said that apprenticeship is falling because of the high cost of instituting it and keeping it going.
Next week we are to receive Lord Hailsham's proposals for the North-East of England. Is it unreasonable to suggest that one of these proposals might be, in addition to the already inspiringly successful depreciation allowances for industry, financial inducements to firms willing to initiate training schemes? This would mean a very rapid increase of badly needed skills and many less frustrated young people standing on the street corner.

Dr. Bray: If the hon. Gentleman has private information about the date of the publication of the report of the Lord

President of the Council, would he be good enough to give it to the House?

Mr. Elliott: I have no other knowledge of the date of the production of the plan than has the hon. Gentleman. This is my own idea. I believe that in today's Press there is the suggestion, and I hope that it is a suggestion of some substance. Perhaps he would make his own inquiries.
In making this suggestion, I am fully aware of the great amount already being done by the agencies of the Ministry of Labour. The Youth Employment Service has been extremely successful. The youth employment officers have received a very reasonable, very fair and justified tribute during the debate. Vocational training schemes and many others are doing a very good job.
It is also fair, in thinking of Government effort with regard to training in industry, that some one should mention the great assistance being given by the technical colleges. The development areas need special aid. It is urgent that they should have it. Since the Finance Bill was introduced, 270 applications have been made under the Local Employment Act. This is splendid. The depreciation allowances have had enormous success, but we must not underestimate the great need for training in this competitive age.
We must recognise that automation could be a monster. It could be the greatest blessing if we face it aright—but it could be a monster. We must face these various aspects fairly and squarely. We must go out for skill. I would conclude with this one request: can we have consideration of financial aid to those industries in development areas which would initiate, as I am sure that they would, given this aid, their own training schemes.

7.22 p.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am glad to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, immediately after the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), because, as he said, this is a problem at its worst in Scotland and the North-East. For this reason, I was: personally, just as the House was, delighted at the speech made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley). He served his apprenticeship in


one of the works which has had vacancies on offer waiting to be filled for apprenticeships for the past year. The dilatoriness of the Ministry of Labour in taking up its offer has meant that 110 boys on Tees-side will never be trained for apprenticeships. It is that record of dilatoriness on which we on this side of the House are attacking the Government tonight.
It is on the basic figures for Tees-side that I would take issue with the Minister. He has been given by his civil servants figures of the fall in youth unemployment since January. Any Minister who was concerned to give a fair presentation of the case would have sent those figures back to his civil servants, with a flea in their ear, and asked them never to submit such a prejudiced case in the future.
The fact is that on Tees-side today, not counting immediate school leavers, there are 1,293 boys and girls unemployed, which is an increase of 80 per cent. on the figures for this time last year. The number of school leavers is higher this year than it was last year. The Parliamentary Secretary, in a recent letter to me, pointed out that there were only 40 leavers from Christmas who are now unemployed in the whole of Tees-side, but he did not take account of the fact, made quite rightly by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson), that the problem comes after the first temporary job, and that between the ages of 15 and 18 we get figures of unemployment in Tees-side amounting sometimes to 30 and 40 percent., particularly in parts of Tees-side, such as Thornaby, which is part of my constituency.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), in a Parliamentary Question on 17th June, quite reasonably asked the Minister of Education for a forecast of employment in the North-East, three, six, nine and 12 months ahead. He also asked for a forecast of the total employment in shipbuilding, six and 12 months ahead. These are eminently reasonable forecasts. He was told by the Minister that no such forecast was possible.
I should like to remind the Minister of a paragraph from the White Paper, the great White Paper on Employment Policy, issued in 1944. This White Paper said:

The following are the principal classes of statistics which must be obtained for the efficient operation of an employment policy: Statistics of employment and unemployment, including quarterly or monthly statements of present and prospective—perhaps the Minister will note—employment in the main industries and areas in the country based on returns from employers.
I have been looking into what has happened to those returns. They were discontinued in 1952. There is some significance in that date. The year after the Government took office the seeds of the present situation were sown. From 1952 to 1956 the returns were restricted to new and reopened premises and since 1956 there have been no returns of prospective employment at all until the present day when a two-man manpower research unit has been set up. Does the Minister not realise that his impotence dates back throughout the whole history of the Government which he is serving and is due to the whole philosophy and outlook which the Government themselves have now abandoned?

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his party was in power immediately after the war and accepted, along with everybody else, the Beveridge Report? The Beveridge Report was based on 8½ per cent. unemployment, a shocking figure which I would never want to see.

Dr. Bray: I think that a fairer quotation would be the 3 per cent. unemployment quoted by Hugh Gaitskell. Perhaps the hon. Member feels that we are still living in the technological and economic world in which that was spoken. Have we not been able to make any progress? Has he not heard of the development of electronic computers?

Mr. Proudfoot: Naturally, I have. I hope that when my business grows big enough I shall buy one.

Dr. Bray: I am not sure that the hon. Member would know how to use it.
We are today faced with the problem of operating the economy in the range not of 70–90 per cent. of capacity, as we did before the war but of 97–103 percent. of capacity, which is a very much more difficult job technically. Therefore, it is disastrous to have a man like the present Minister of Labour holding the post, for he has not the outlook


needed to manage the highly complicated manpower system.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) is, of course, right. We must have a manpower budget, and it must be most fully worked out in terms of the age structure of the population, the craft structure and prospective employment. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North said that industry is in the best position to judge that last factor, and he is right.
None of this information is coming to the Ministry of Labour now. The Minister will not get it from his two men who are inquiring into the engineering and metal industries. If we are to get this entirely new outlook, much more fundamental reform is required than is within the power of the Minister of Labour. What has the Minister been trying to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade? He firmly believes, I am sure, that the local employment policy of the Government is so sweeping that no Labour Government could possibly have got it through the Treasury. That, I understand, is the view of the Minister. I think he is totally deluded about this; either that, or the Treasury is going to be an even tougher nut and in even greater need of cracking than most people think it is.

Mr. Hare: I do not want to argue with the hon. Member, but when he talks about my being deluded I can assure him that what he has said is a complete illusion on his part.

Dr. Bray: If the right hon. Gentleman would like to be more particular about what my illusions are, I shall be delighted to give way to him. Apparently he does not wish to do so.
Looking at the situation as we face it on Tees-side today, one obviouslyis bound to make positive suggestions. That is what all of us on Tees-side have been trying to do. We have had £3,000 from the Minister of Labour, which has not produced a single job yet. There have been apprenticeships waiting unoccupied.
Where one faces an employment situation where one has 1,300 boys and girls looking for jobs, one has to look beyond the training problem. I wish to maintain

my pressure upon the Minister—it is the pressure of everyone on this side of the House—to increase the training places and to build Government training centres. But we must realise that such is the hopelessness about getting action out of the Government that we have now to move to another stage. We have to appreciate that the situation is now so bad that we must move on into providing emergency employment for the probable 40 per cent. of young people who will be unemployed on Tees-side within six months.
What can we do? We can create workshops. We can perhaps create pioneer camps. This is a difficult possibility. However, I talk to the young people in Tees-side in the coffee bars at the weekend. They are very fine young people, far better educated than any previous generation has been. They are finding just nothing at all to do except to go along on a Friday and pick up the dole at the youth employment exchange.
If only there were someone in the Ministry of Labour with a spirit of enthusiasm for doing something about this! The Minister clearly knows that it would be possible. I would ask him personally to come and meet some of these young people to make suggestions about what they might do and how they might organise themselves and to receive suggestions from them about the help which he could offer them. He would find them most charming, and they would be, I am sure, helpful to him. As it is, however, one knows that the Minister of Labour is regarded as a wet blanket, as a man who discourages people who want to do things to provide employment. Those who are enthusiastic about doing things find constant discouragement from the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman makes speeches and the Lord President of the Council makes speeches, but over and over again there is "some difficulty" which rules out the possibility of immediate, sweeping and imaginative action to cope with the situation.
There will definitely be a situation this winter in which we shall have perhaps 2,000 boys and girls unemployed—right through the winter. Last year I uttered a similar warning, but the Minister pooh-poohed it. He will no doubt pooh-pooh this warning. I accept his assertion that in the end the situation will improve,


because we ourselves are going to do things even if the action which he has taken is not sufficient.
But what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about the next six months? Is he going to do nothing at all about it? This is the problem which will shape the life of these youngsters for better or for worse, and the solution is in his own hands. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) on many occasions pointed to the power of the individual against the great forces of history and held nothing for the power of statesmen being determined by the circumstances in which they had to act. The Minister—I accept it—faces a difficult problem, but in the name of humanity and in the name of the well-being of these young people, cannot he do something for them as they face the bleak months ahead?

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his recognition of our problems on Tees-side. I believe that he is facing them squarely. It is a comfort to the people in that quarter of the country to know that he is aware of the problems.
The most perishable commodity in this world is labour. Once a day's work is lost, it is lost to the whole of the society of this world for ever. That is something of which we are all conscious, no matter no which side of the House we sit.
I want to pose a question to my right hon. Friend—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray)—about the possibility of training more apprentices at I.C.I, and Dorman Long on Tees-side. The offer was made a long time ago. The Government reacted promptly, but still nothing has happened. I should like to know the reason why the offer has not been taken up. My right hon. Friend mentioned it in his speech, and said that the matter was now under way. I should like to know the date when apprentices will start to be trained.
I also thank my right hon. Friend very specifically for having lifted a corner of the veil from the Hailsham Report. He referred to growth points, and I think that he will concede that he said that the Hailsham Report says that growth

paints are required. Here my right hon. Friend has my absolute and full support, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the idea that in an industrial area such as the whole of the North-East there must be growth points, for new industry cannot be taken to every village and hamlet.

Mr. J. Robertson: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member, and I hope that he will be able to convince his right hon. Friend. But will he not agree that the Minister who will largely determine whether there shall be growth points or otherwise will be the President of the Board of Trade, under the Local Employment Act? If so, will he try to convince that Minister?

Mr. Proudfoot: I am confident that the problem in the North-East, or this challenge to the Government in the North-East—let us be more vigorous about it in this respect, and not call it a "problem", which is a negative approach—is being faced squarely by the Government. I have lived in the area all my life. I am absolutely confident that the future beckoning the North-East at present is better than it has ever been in my life.
That does not mean to say that there will be jobs there in three months' time, but I am convinced that the right things will be done. We must get the size of the problem in perspective. In the North Riding County Council area, in which my division lies, there are 16,000 youngsters between the ages of 15 and 18 and a current figure of 697 unemployed. This represents 4·4 per cent. and it is too high. That figure is not good enough, and it should be brought down.

Dr. Bray: The North Riding comes down all the way to York. The hon. Gentleman should quote the figures for his constituency. They would give a very different story, since they go up to 20 per cent. there.

Mr. Proudfoot: In football terms, this is a needle match. The hon. Member represents a neighbouring constituency. But it is also part of the North Riding County Council area.
I was referring to conditions in that area as a whole. The hon. Member gave detailed figures for Tees-side and I do not want to repeat them all. But the


figures from my constituency show that 16 school leavers are still unemployed from last summer—that is too many—22 from Christmas—that is too many—and 90 from Easter—and that is too many. But the great bulk of those who have left school during the past year are in work.
I shall not be dismal about the prospects of the area. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member in this debate. He painted an extremely gloomy picture of Tees-side, but it is one at variance with the truth. The truth is that Tees-side is going to be a growth area.
Last October, at my party conference, I said that the areas which, in the 1930s, were called distressed areas should now be thought of as areas of opportunity for economic growth without inflation. I am delighted to say that the N.E.D.C. copied me. I do not know who thought of it first, but the N.E.D.C. said it afterwards, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, used my terminology as well. I believe that my prediction was absolutely accurate. I have lived in that area all my life and when I look at Tees-side today I see enormous prospects.
One more name very much heard of in this post-war world was that of Lord Boyd-Orr. By now, according to his predictions, the world should be starved to death. That was what he prophesied after the war, Of course, much of the world is hungry, and I hate that, but, nevertheless, we are producing more food in the world than ever before. We have heard these "dismal johnnies" making forecasts before.
We have been told that there has been no growth in Britain this century. My father is 72 years old and in his lifetime the country's population has doubled. I suppose that this should be surprising in view of what Britain is supposed not to have done this century.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the gross national product has not risen this century?

Mr. Proudfoot: The hon. Gentleman has got me wrong. I said that the population had doubled in my father's lifetime. I remember that during the

1930s it was said that our population would not grow. But only recently the demographers have decided that we will have 7 million additional people by 1981.

Dr. Bray: I am sure that when the hon. Member goes down fighting he will come out with the same "spiel" about future prospects of Tees-side. Now will he say what the prospects are for young people at the works of Dorman Long and I.C.I.?

Mr. Proudfoot: I will come to that. I will startle the hon. Member. There has been a terrible assumption in this debate. That assumption is that everybody should work in factories. A stranger listening to hon. Members would assume that there are no jobs outside factories. But there are such things as service workers. As the economy develops, more and more people will work on services. Another underlying assumption in the debate is that there is a caste system between skilled and unskilled—the skilled being identified by five years' apprenticeship and a union card. That is wrong. There are skills in all kinds of jobs which must be considered as well.
I welcome the Government's White Paper whereby firms with a small number of employees—a minimum of five—will be levied for training purposes. Thus, whether a firm has 500 or five employees, training will be as good as anywhere. That is very important.
I have said that not everyone works in factories; and that there are service workers—many of them. Most of us here are service workers. We do not produce any tangible goods to sell. I am staggered to hear what the hon. Members for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West say on this. If they look through the first Report of the N.E.D.C. they will see the broad outline of what should happen—which industries should expand in employment and which should contract.
For instance, in the steel industry nationally, it is expected, by 1966, that 22,000 fewer workers will be employed. In chemicals, however, the picture is different. At Wilton, I.C.I, will have the biggest factory in Europe when it is finished; it is in my division. That does not sound like a gloomy picture. The factory will be one of the most automated


in the world. That is an achievement to shout about. The chemical industry as a whole will have 34,000 more workers by 1966.
Then there is the trade which is often scorned in this House—the distributive trade. In the next five years, it is expected to need 220,000 more workers, more than any other. Who is to train the cobblers and beauticians? Recently, the Daily Mail said that 36 per cent. of girl apprentices were apprenticed to hairdressers.
In the United States there are barbers' colleges on Third Avenue, New York. One can get a free haircut in the back shop. When the apprentices have more practice one can get it for 10 cents in the front shop. When they are fully trained it costs a dollar. We have to train people for all these jobs. I believe that there is a school for barbers at Hull.
Think of the policemen, teachers, petrol filling station attendants. They are all service workers. The community will demand more and more of them. If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, looks around Tees-side, he will see it happening. I know that it was so before the war. Any hon. Member can check that this is so in his own home town. Walk along the main street of any town and see how many hairdressers there are. They have multiplied and they are all creating work.
Tonight, I was talking to a salesman who sells washing machines. There is nothing wrong in that. He employs 30 supervisors and 270 service men. That is a considerable number of jobs. Where have all the television workers come from since television started up? That was another big creation of jobs.
I have said that my father is 72 and that the country's population has doubled in his lifetime. Look at the opportunities we have as our population grows. The old myth was that a machine was supposed to put a man out of work. But it never really did in practice. It might put him out of a job temporarily, but, as conditions changed, more and different types of jobs were created. For instance, if we are to make our way in the world we must automate and sell more goods overseas.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Where will this expansion in our productive efforts come from? Where will we get the wealth to keep all these distributive and service workers alive and comparatively free from starvation?

Mr. Proudfoot: I am delighted to be asked that question. Let us sweat machines, not men. With the same number of men let us produce more goods and sell more efficiently overseas. In that way we can earn all these better services—and that includes better education, better health services, more and better roads. That will be the case with both public and private enterprise services.
That is the prospect if we get back to "good old commercialism". That, in reality, is what we mean when we talk about increasing exports. We mean that we must get out and sell, because it is only salesmanship which will put us right. Without salesmen there would be a lot fewer jobs. By 1981, there will be 7 million more people in this country, and 20 million more on the West coast of the United States. I am in the grocery business. Seven million more mouths to feed is a lot of business. If these people have one haircut a month, that is 84 million haircuts a year, and that is a lot of hair.
The fact of the matter is that this expansion will happen and, what is more, we will have freedom of choice with it. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis), saying that jobs should have been provided on Tees-side for instrument makers, but where is the freedom of choice for the manufacturer and for the industry? He suggests direction of industry.

Dr. Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman elucidate his own argument? Is he saying that Scotland and the North-East can live by taking in each other's washing and cutting each other's hair for the next five years?

Mr. Proudfoot: Of course not, but only one person in 20 is a productive worker. Hon. Members opposite always talk about productive workers, but school teachers, housewives, children at school, doctors, lawyers and politicians are all service workers who produce


nothing, but they are essential to the running of our community.
Let me go on with what I was saying about choice. The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) talked about the choice in apprenticeship, but the choice stops dead at a certain physical age. The present Government did not do that and nor did the previous Government The people responsible for the restrictive practice of keeping down the number of apprentices are the trade unions. That is an absolutely unavoidable fact.

Dr. Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman name a single workshop on Tees-side where the apprenticeship ratio has been reached?

Mr. Proudfoot: It is a fact. The number of apprenticeships is unnaturally curtailed for protective reasons. There are trade associations as well as trade unions with the same restrictive outlook. I do not like that outlook in either, but it exists.

Mr. Prentice: I have listened to the hon. Member with great amusement and interest. He is very entertaining, but he must not be so deliberately unfair about the trade union movement. He knows that trade union leaders are playing a great part in demanding an extension and modernising of apprenticeship training. Lethim look at people like George Lowthian, who was the chairman of the Industrial Training Council for several years, and the speech of Frank Cousins, at the B.A.C.I.E. conference in January. One trade union leader after another has taken the lead. Becausea very small minority of trade unions have this restrictive outlook, as do a proportion of employers, the hon. Member is not justified in making these generalisations.

Mr. Proudfoot: I am prepared to agree that that is the view of the leaders, but when it gets down to local branch level it is not carried out.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Where?

Mr. Proudfoot: I am convinced that this is the case. I am sure that this is one of the restrictive practices which we have to get rid of.
Hon. Members opposite talk about planning without saying that it is not

always necessarily 100 per cent. right. Steel production has been planned since the 1930s, but there is now surplus capacity in the heavier end of the industry. This capacity was deliberately planned; the capacity not the unemployment. Over the years, the Governments have been a party to this planning, but planning does not always work, and the greatest worry in my constituency now is about the heavy steel industry, which is, rightly, installing modern equipment to meet world competition.
It is grossly dishonest for Socialists in the North-East to say that if they had been in power they would have done better. Their methods are nationalisation and the direction of industry, and I do not believe that those methods will help our nation at all. I very much doubt whether they would help the areas concerned.
We often hear talk in the House about the need for the President of the Board of Trade to be tougher about the granting of industrial development certificates. These views come from hon. Members on either side of the House who have constituencies with unemployment problems. But if one goes out of the Chamber and meets hon. Members, from both parties, who have constituencies where proposals for building a factory have been stopped, even if they have full employment or over-full employment, one finds that they say that they are being made a black spot of the future. Both sides of the House owe a debt of gratitude to the President of the Board of Trade for his attitude towards I.D.C.s.

Mr. Dalyell: There is a concrete example. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) reasoned with his own constituents as to why a branch of the British Oxygen Company should go to Dunbartonshire.

Mr. Proudfoot: I am delighted to hear it and I applaud it.
Let me try to remove some of the gloom from Tees-side. Tees-side is one of the country's natural growth areas. It just cannot help it. The Government have laid out the money to deepen the river and a £3,500,000dock, the first since the war, in this country, was opened a few weeks ago. Within two miles is a £3½ million electronics railway siding. It is true that the connection with the A.1


motorway needs improvement and that we want a better road to the North, but alongside this big area are thousands of acres of completely flat and recoverable land, a "natural" for industrial development. Tees-side, in the long run, cannot help but succeed and I, for one, have great faith in its future.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: Having sat through the whole debate, I found it particularly pleasing to hear the light-hearted contribution, and I think I should say the light-weight contribution, from the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), who apparently shares the optimism of his right hon. Friend the Minister in believing that the future is well in hand. I should like to try to get back to some reality, a reality which has been noticeably missing from many of the contributions which have emanated from hon. Members opposite.
For example, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) talked about adventure, about people saving £50 and going to America to work as golf caddies. In my constituency there is unemployment among young people. In his, there is no such unemployment. He lives in a different world and his realities are different from those which I know in my constituency. The only adventure, if it can be called adventure, which is open to so many young people, unemployed and living in the back streets, is the adventure which can be found in the back streets and in the corner cafés, and which so often finishes in the police courts.
Another hon. Member talked about the need for labour mobility. We all entirely agree about that if this country and its industry are to meet the challenge of the second half of the twentieth century, but we have to take into account the fact that in the last decade the North has stagnated and declined while there has been a tremendous inrush of population to high cost areas, the south Midlands and London particularly, and this is something which we have to attempt to prevent.
We need mobility of labour, but in the North, where so many traditional industries are contracting, new industries are needed. Nor is it a matter only of industries for the present development

areas. There are other areas which are having difficulty and which have high rates of unemployment. New industries must go to the people of the North in the areas where traditional industries are employing declining numbers.
I think that it would be as well if I harked back to one of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) when he dealt with the human problem of adolescents who are out of work or are working short time. Not enough has been said about this today. It is something of a truism to point out that unemployment has a cancerous effect on the people who suffer it. One has only to look at pictures of people who stood on the street corners in the 1930's and then look into the eyes of people who are unemployed now to see the effect that unemployment has had on them.
I think that we must give a great deal of weight to this tremendous human problem of unemployment, but if there is this terrible effect on the adult section of the population, how much worse must it be for adolescents, with all their questionings, their worries, and their complexes, when they come out of school into the world of industrial reality and find that there is no place for them?
One of the great problems of this society and of the age in which we live is the apparent lack of purpose, the Jack of design, the lack of any end, other than personal ends. The cancerous effect of unemployment on young people—and at the moment unemployment exists to the tune of 33,000—is leading to, and is another factor in, the moral disintegration which has taken place, and is taking place, in the second half of the century.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), in a notable maiden speech, if I as a comparatively new Member may so describe it, dealt with some of the social effects of unemployment among young people. We all know that unemployment affects people, and one has only to look at the literature of the last century and that of the early decades of this century, when unemployment figures were at their highest, to realise that this is so. To my mind comes the picture of the young unemployed mill operatives who stood as prostitutes outside the Royal Exchange in Manchester during the last century.
The problem that we are dealing with now is nothing like so severe as it was then, but it would be a foolhardy man who said that unemployment does not have some effect not only on young people but on all sections of the population. I have recently been looking at some of the statistics published in respect of my constituency. The Chief Constable of Rotherham, in his report for last year, makes a special note of the alarming rise in the number of indecency cases concerning youths and girls. One also notes that the number of young people taken to court almost doubled from 1961 to 1962. The Medical Officer of Health for Rotherham reports that the number of illegitmate births in 1962 was the highest since 1957, and particular emphasis is put on the fact that young people are here concerned.
It seems at least arguable that there is some connection between figures of that kind and the present widespread unemployment amongst young people. It is not possible to demonstrate definitively that there is a connection, but any sociologist will agree that there is a connection between crime, misbehaviour and unemployment, and I think that we should have due regard to this when we are considering the effect on young people of unemployment which is largely the result of the economic policy pursued by the Government in recent years.
Young people in my constituency are undergoing the same kind of difficulties in attempting to find employment as are those in many other parts of the country. The situation in my division is perhaps better than it is in some, but I should like to illustrate some of the problems, and some of the deep related causes of the situation in which we find ourselves, by reference to some constituency points. One of the weaknesses, perhaps a necessary and inevitable weakness, of the Ministers' speech this afternoon was that many of the things that he said were in general true, but they bore little relation to the situation one finds in particular parts of the country.
In my constituency, 144 young people who left school some time ago, and who are now 16 or 17, are out of work. To this number will be added a further 580 when the schools close. In addition, some of the young people in the town
are on short-time, in answer to a Question I asked a few days ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said—and I accept his point—that the youth employment officers do all that they can to help. Nobody disputes this, and I pay my tribute to the good work done by these officials, but whatever they do they cannot solve the problem, because the jobs simply are not available.
It is not a bit of good running careers evenings and having careers libraries in schools if the jobs are not there for these youngsters. Even if youth employment officials work sixteen hours a day, they will get nowhere, and this situation is to be found in many areas. They are doing magnificent work, but the jobs simply are not there because of the prevailing economic climate which has arisen directly from the policies pursued by this Government.
We are coming into the pre-General Election period, and a considerable amount of money has been injected into the economy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so we shall no doubt see an improvement in some areas, and perhaps over quite a large section of the economy, but the fact remains that at the moment we are faced with a situation in which, for example, girls are finding it extremely difficult to obtain employment in the retail trade. I have an example of this in my constituency. In the very near future a large department store in my constituency is to lose five women who are leaving either to get married or to have babies. The firm does not intend to replace these women, and similar situations are to be found in many areas of the country. The jobs are just not available,
The young people who are finding it particularly difficult are those with lower educational attainments and it is to these people that I should like to pay attention for a few moments.
I want to point out to the Minister one fact which emerges from the situation in my constituency. I should like to know how widespread this situation is. In 1957–58, there were 21 young people on five-year courses in one type of school or another who left before the end of their courses. In 1961–62 this number rose to 69, and apparently it will be higher for the next year. Once again it


could be argued that there is a direct connection between the volume of unemployment and short-time working which my constituency has experienced as a result of the under working of the steel industry and the waste of this potential for the future. These young people, who have the ability to undergo a five-year course of education and to do the General Certificate of Education and all kinds of things like that, are leaving before they have received the full benefit of those educational courses, owing to the economic circumstances that surround them.
It is to the position of the young people with lower educational abilities, attainments and qualifications, and to the problem of—if I may use the term—technological unemployment, that I want to turn. As a result of the introduction of automatic and semi-automatic plant—and hon. Members on this side of the House have repeatedly stated that we welcome its introduction—many traditional "boys" jobs either no longer exist or are disappearing. The most worrying thing is that the number of available jobs is decreasing and will tend to decrease still further in the future.
I want to quote two examples from my constituency which arise from the modernisation of plant in the steel industry and the glass industry. In the glass industry this modernisation has had the effect of reducing the requirement for young boys. In 1953, 15 boys were employed as takers-in, performing the simple operation of carrying bottles from the semi-automatic blowing machines to the ovens. The modern fully automatic machines not only blow more bottles in a given time but automatically convey those bottles into the ovens without human aid. There are fewer male operatives, and the minimum level of intelligence required for this new type of job is considerably higher than was required in the past.
The figures of intake are interesting. In 1954 it was 16; in 1957 it was 1; in 1958 it was nil; in 1959 it was 1, and there has been no further intake since that year. This is a small example of what is happening and what will continue to happen with the introduction of automatic and semi-automatic plant. We welcome the introduction of this

plant, but the Government should have been taking note of this kind of situation as it has developed in the last six or seven years, and should be in a position to cope with the problem. It should have created new jobs, so that these people-especially those at the bottom of the educational ladder—should have the basic right and privilege of any individual in a modern civilised community of being able not only to have a job but a choice of jobs on leaving school, as my hon. Friend has said.
The second example, which is more extensive in my constituency, is connected with the steel industry. The firms of Steel, Peech and Tozer and the Parkgate Iron and Steel Co. are two large iron and steel producing works which provide employment for many of my constituents. Nowadays these firms seem to be recruiting most of their operative trainees from the top half of the secondary modern streams, with an occasional opening, in the older mills, for boys who do not enter under the normal training scheme.
A few years ago, the number of openings for such boys would have been greater, but these openings are constantly being reduced. At Messrs. Steel, Peech and Tozer's modern electric arcfurnaces are being installed, capable of tremendous production—the Spear project—and when this work is finished it will cause a reduction of about 1,000 in the demand for labour. This is not only a question of young people; it concerns the whole prosperity of my area. Nevertheless, young people and especially those with the least educational qualifications and ability, will experience tremendous difficulties in the next few years.
A similar situation exists in the coal industry. Outside my constituency, but in the area of south Yorkshire, a number of pits have closed in recent years. We all know that manpower in the coal industry will tend to contract over a period. The indication is that there will be fewer employment prospects in this kind of area than there were in the past. It is this problem that the Government should have been dealing with in the 1950s. They should be dealing with it now. As my hon. Friend said earlier, they have tended to do too little too late.

The question is: how are we to attempt to cope with the problem? The problem of finding employment for the young


people of this generation is perhaps almost a hopeless one, but we must do two things. We have to bring into operation an emergency crash programme for this bulge from the schools—for the people who will be coming from the schools in the next few years and for whom, at the moment, employment will not be available because of technological developments.
Secondly, we must indulge in long-term planning on a scale that we have never before had in this country. It has been said that we have a two-man team. What we should be doing is looking forward into the 'seventies with regional and national planning. We should be considering the question whether an inherited Civil Service is in a position, from the staffing point of view, to be able to deal with the intricate problems of labour, not to mention other matters. One revolution that we have not yet had in this century—but one that we must have—is the transformation of the Civil Service into an organisataion or machine capable of dealing with the problems of the second half rather than the first half of the twentieth century.
Next, in thinking of how we can cope with the problem, we must realise that in many areas traditional industries predominate and that if something is not done for those areas now or in the near future they will be development districts in ten years' time. The situation cannot be dealt with only by looking at the existing development districts. We have a twofold job in the performance of which the Government have fallen down. It is necessary also to look ahead to deal with the problems which will arise in the second half of the 1960s and in the 1970s when so many areas with traditional industries may become new development districts.
The third thing which we have to do in order to cope with the problem of unemployment among young people, which goes beyond the scope of the Ministry of Labour, is to look at the whole educational system of the country. I have some experience of the secondary modern school system, and it is my opinion that in many of the secondary modern schools, because of the size of the classes; because we have not the teachers and because of the appalling

lack of scientific and other kinds of: equipment in those schools—which have tended to become the poor boys of the education system—many of our young people leave school without having had their capacity for development extended to the full, as it would have been had we the necessary buildings, staff and equipment.
We must look again at the problem of apprenticeships. In my own area and beyond there is a decline in the number of apprenticeships available. I understand that the English Steel Corporation Ltd. recently offered 30 craft apprenticeships compared with 50 offered in normal years. Davy and United Engineering Company have cut down their intake of apprentices. The south Yorkshire youth employment committees recently sent out a questionnaire and letter to 259 engineering firms and works, and of the 80 firms which have answered to date only 31 have shown any interest in discussing methods to improve the standard and variety of training given in the engineering industry.
In my opinion we need more positive guidance and action from the Government. It is impossible to run the economy with a complete lack of planning and the kind of disregard of the interests of the individual region shown by this Government. We need a Government who realise that the young people of the country are an essential part of our social capital. Until we have such a Government, which will take the necessary steps to implement the policy which is needed, there will be no prosperity for this country.

8.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): In accordance with the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend I will now try to answer some of the points raised during what I think may be described as a valuable debate. My right hon. Friend dealt fully with the general position and in the interests of the House I shall seek to avoid covering any of the same ground.
I wish to start by congratulating the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) on what I think was widely regarded as a very good maiden speech. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great


personal knowledge of his subject. I agreed with him that youth employment is linked with the problem of general employment and that we have the responsibility of seeking to offer not only a choice of job, but the right job.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) asked about the appointment of a technical adviser on industrial training. The hon. Gentleman will realise that already we have a technical advisory staff concerned with the Government training centres. They are fully stretched at present on the expansion of the centres. Under these circumstances it was necessary to make a new appointment in connection with the White Paper and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome this as evidence of the urgency with which my right hon. Friend is seeking to implement these proposals. I can assure him that the needs of the Ministry for technical advice of this sort will be kept very carefully under review.

Mr, Prentice: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any other appointments in this sphere are in prospect in the near future? Without wishing to cast any reflection on the staff to which he referred, it seems to me that their experience is narrow and one would think that a whole range of experience is needed in order to plan an attack on the problem generally.

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Member says, but I shall confine myself now to the point I have made. If there is anything further I can add, I shall send it to him in writing.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), in an intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend, asked for some details of vacancies for boys and girls, by trades. For boys the figures for June, 1963, were: in engineering and electrical goods, 2,547; in construction, 2,165; and in distribution, 5,811. The hon. Member is particularly interested in mining, so I also inform him that in mining and quarrying the number was 941. For girls it would probably be best to quote distribution, in which the number was 9,150. I hope that that gives the hon. Member some of the information he wanted.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) said about the importance of train-

ing in commercial firms. He asked for a White Paper on this subject, but I assure him that that is unnecessary as the legislation which my right hon. Friend has in mind will apply to commercial as well as to all other forms of industrial training. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made some very important points arising out of the Feilden Committee's Report. I assure him that what he said will be carefully studied, not only by my right hon. Friend, but by other Ministers concerned.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give way, because the time is short. I am sorry, but in the interests of other hon. Members, I have undertaken to be very brief, and it seems right that I should do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) referred to the need for assistance for young people willing to do training away from their home areas. I think that he would be the first to agree that this must be seen against the background of the paramount need to develop industry in areas where opportunities are needed, and this is the Government's policy. I remind him, however, that under the Government's Training Allowances Scheme the Government help to find opportunities for young people under 18 outside their home areas and to provide for their expenses, including maintenance, travel and pocket money.
The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) made a very well-informed contribution—as one would expect—on the problems of Scotland. It underlined the need for special measures for Scotland, which was recognised very fully by my right hon. Friend, but, I thought, was disputed by some hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) suggested that it would be right to have a special youth employment service in development districts. The existing service is a national service, and I think rightly so, designed to give vocational guidance and placing to all who seek them. What we must do is to see that the service is adequately staffed to meet the differing workload in each area. This may well call—I agree with him—for more staffing in the difficult areas. He will find an answer to his


other main point in the Government's training proposals.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) indulged in a lot of personal rudeness in which I shall not seek to follow him. Even if I tried to do so, I like to think that I should not be capable of it. I refute absolutely what he said about delay and lack of drive on the part of my right hon. Friend. He knows that it is untrue and denied by many hon. Members in this House and people outside.
0
I turn to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot). He asked—

Dr. Bray: Dr. Bray rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: —about the training offers of I.C.I, and Dorman Long.

Dr. Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to say that what another hon. Member says is untrue? Is it in order to say that the statement made by another hon. Member is untrue?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): It is not out of order to say that a statement is untrue It may be untrue because of an hon. Member's ignorance. What is out of order is to call another hon. Member a liar.

Mr. Whitelaw: If I said anything which reflected on what the hon.Member believed to be true, I would withdraw it at once. I am not seeking to cast aspersions at all on what he said, but I say that some of the remarks the hon. Member made about my right hon. Friend were not strictly accurate and he knew it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland asked what had happened about the training places offered by I.C.I. and Dorman Long. The Government have made a grant and have offered a loan towards developing a group scheme. With this assistance, the North-East Training Council has organised a scheme which at present covers 14 firms and has enrolled 110 apprentices. The first apprentices have already started their training in the I.C.T. school, and the numbers are expected to increase steadily.
I have done my best to answer those hon. Members who referred to matters with which my right hon. Friend had not dealt. In addition, some hon. Members

made special points about their own areas. Where necessary I will write to them. The debate has produced different assessments of the extent of the problem with which we are faced. My feeling is that some hon. Members, and, with respect, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) was one of them, have been too despondent. There has also been some disagreement about methods. But we are: all united in our determination to see that boys and girls have the best possible start to their working lives. That is the clear objective of the Government's policy.

Orders of the Day — SOUTH AFRICA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: At this stage in the debate I desire to invite the attention of the House to another question, namely, that of the export of arms to South Africa. This is not the first time that my hon. Friends and I have sought to raise this issue during the present Session. Three months ago 100 of my hon. Friends, together with certain members of the Liberal Party, placed this Motion upon the Order paper:
That this House condemns the policy of apartheid pursued by the Government to South Africa, the denial of elementary human rights to the great majority of the South African people and the series of enactments whereby the South African Parliament have abrogated the rule of law and transformed the Republic into a police state; further condemns the refusal of the South African Government to accept and act on the opinion of the International Court on South West Africa; and, having regard to the views expressed on 6th November, 1962, by the General Assembly of the United Nations, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to propose to the United Nations a general embargo upon the export of arms and military equipment to South Africa.
That was last May.
More recently this has become a matter of great urgency, because it is extremely probable that this issue will be raised before the Security Council in the near future. The purpose of my hon. Friends and myself in initiating this debate this evening is that we wish to discover, if we can, what will be the Government's attitude when this question is debated by the Security Council or, as it may be a little later, by the General Assembly.
Let me emphasise that what we are concerned with this evening is the question


of a universal embargo effective through the United Nations. When last March in Trafalgar Square my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that a Labour Government would impose an embargo on the export of arms from this country to South Africa, the immediate objection was raised in various quarters that orders would merely be transferred elsewhere. It was said, in effect, that we must continue supplying arms to South Africa because if we did not do it someone else would. Any pimp or prostitute or drug pedlar could put forward precisely the same justification. But what we are asking for tonight is not unilateral action by this Government but action by the United Nations.
For a very long time past this country has been open to the reproach that, while we condemned by our words and speeches the policy of apartheid pursued in South Africa and all its manifestations, we nevertheless condoned it by our actions. I remind the House, if I may, of one of the terms of the resolution passed by the General Assembly last November. Among other things, the General Assembly expressed
regret that the actions of some member-States indirectly provided encouragement to the Government of the Republic of South Africa to perpetuate its policy of racial segregation, which has been rejected by the majority of that country's population.
Clearly Britain was one of the countries there referred to.
I do not need tonight to enlarge upon the policies of the South African Government. We all know that we are dealing with an evil régime. It is not fortuitous that the leaders of the South African Government were pro-Nazi during the war. Theirs is indeed the doctrine of Hitler, the doctrine of the Herrenvolk. Anyone who has any doubt at all on that source need only read the Report of the International Commission of Jurists in 1960. Since 1960, as the whole world knows, there have been still further measures of repression, culminating in the recent Act under which persons can be and are held incommunicado without trial and without even legal advice for a period of 90 days.
Whenever we raise this matter in debate or at Question Time, the Government tell us that the equipment exported to South Africa

is intended first and foremost for defence against external attack".
That was the phrase used in our last discussion on the Whitsun Adjournment by the Minister of State, Board of Trade. I remind the House of what the hon. Gentleman said:
The Government have repeatedly made it clear that tine military equipment sold to South Africa is intended first and foremost for defence against external attack and particularly for the joint defence of the sea routes round the Cape, in which our two Governments—and other Governments of the free world—have a long-standing common interest. The equipment is not, for the most part, of a type which is suitable for measures of internal repression."—[Official Report, 31st May, 1963; Vol. 678, c. 1786.]
The House will observe the two qualifying phrases—"first and foremost" and "for the most part". This is a very disingenuous statement, typical of a great many statements which we have had from the Government front bench in recent months. When military aircraft or helicopters or armoured cars are exported to South Africa, of course they can be used, and of course they sometimes are used, for policies of internal repression. The importance of the arms does not end there. They have a further effect. They necessarily strengthen the position of the South African Government vis-à-vis the rest of Africa and vis-à the United Nations.
I should like to ask for a little information as to the arms which are now being ordered and the licences which are being granted. There is a report from Pretoria in The Times this morning. One passage in the report says this:
Mr. Fouché,Minister of Defence, has said a contract for supersonic Blackburn Buccaneer navalstrike aircraft has been signed and the aircraft are now being assembled in England. A submarine-hunting frigate is now under construction in Britain and due to be delivered to South Africa next year. The Minister also hinted that South Africa might buy submarines from Britain. Orders have been placed for British helicopters and for military vehicles,
Are we to be told that helicopters and military vehicles have nothing to do with policies of internal repression? I would like to know from the Minister tonight whether this report is correct, if these orders have been or are being placed in this country on behalf of the South African Government, and whether licences for this equipment have in fact been granted.
We on this side of the House are fully aware of the commercial factors involved. It may be true that an arms embargo might result not only in the immediate loss of orders which are being placed in this country but also in some general damage to our trade with the South African Republic. We do not underrate that in the least, but we have reached a stage when these considerations can no longer be paramount. We have reached the point when we must choose.
It may be logical, but trade in arms is always regarded as in a category entirely by itself. Thatis why we permit arms to be exported only under licence, If in October, 1956, just after Soviet tanks had shot their way through the streets of Budapest, it had been announced that this country was to sell military equipment to either the Soviet Government or the puppet government of Hungary, there would have been a storm of protest from every political party in Britain. But we have today something similar in Africa and we have a similar African reaction. In the last debate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) referred to some utterances of Chief Luthuli and I will quote two of his sentences. Referring to the countries of the West, Chief Luthuli said:
Yet these countries today, and Britain foremost among them, are guilty of arming the savage nationalist party régime. The Saracens built in Britain have already left an indelible blot upon the history of my country; now it seems your Buccaneers and your tanks must leave their foul imprint".
We can be absolutely certain that those words of Chief Luthuli find an echo throughout the whole African continent.
If we ourselves continue to supply arms to South Africa or if we fail to support a general embargo when one is proposed, either in the Security Council or the General Assembly, we shall inevitably pay a very heavy price. We shall find ourselves increasingly distrusted by the newly independent African States, all those which were represented a few weeks ago in the conference at Addis Ababa, and most of the Asian countries as well. Even from the point of view of trade alone—even if we could, as we cannot, put aside the other considerations—it is questionable whether it is worth while in the long run alienating the whole of the Afro-Asian bloc.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer tonight. I think I am right in saying that in September there will come before the International Court a case brought by Liberia and Ethiopia against South Africa in relation to the South-West African Mandate. They will be submitting that by the policy of apartheid as pursued in South-West Africa, and in other ways, South Africa has failed to carry out the terms of the Mandate. They will further submit that South Africa is in breach of her obligations under Section 73 of the United Nations Charter.
A few days ago I asked the Lord Privy Seal by whom Britain was to be represented at this hearing. I received the reply that the United Kingdom was not a party to these proceedings and that, therefore, it was not proposed to intervene. I do not want to go into the technicalities of this. I only say that it may be open to this country, if it were thought fit, to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute of the Court. Britain was one of the principal allied and associated Powers to which Germany renounced her rights in South-West Africa at the end of the First World War. Britain was a member of the League of Nations, which created the Mandate; and the Mandate was conferred on His Britannic Majesty for and on behalf of the Government of the Union of South Africa.
All of those are grounds on which it might be held that we are entitled to intervene. I make this suggestion because it would, I believe, do a great deal to restore the reputation of this country on the African Continent if we were to intervene in these proceedings in support of the Liberian and Ethiopian case.
We should base ourselves on Article 73 of the Charter, under which, as the House knows:
Every Power administering a non-self-governing territory is under the solemn obligation to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.
No one can possibly say that those obligations have been discharged in South-West Africa.
I therefore put these questions to the Minister. First, will Her Majesty's Government themselves propose an embargo on the shipment of all arms and military equipment to the Republic of South Africa? Secondly, if not, alternatively, will they support such a proposal if it is made in the Security Council or in the General Assembly by some other country? Thirdly, will they seriously consider intervening in the forthcoming proceedings in relation to South-West Africa before the International Court? I am not too sanguine, but I hope that for once we may have clear and categorical answers from the Treasury Bench.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Humphry Berkeley: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), and I find myself in large agreement with what he has said. There can be no doubt whatever that our reputation in Africa will very largely be judged in the coming months by the attitude we adopt towards the Republic of South Africa.
It is a rather melancholy reflection that despite an outstanding record of bringing territories from dependence to independence in Africa, despite a large degree of good will that we have acquired in those territories that we formerly governed and now have with us as equal partners of the Commonwealth, we have, by our ambiguities of policies in other parts of Africa, done so much to destroy the admiration and the cerdit that we have rightly earned for our own actions in our own territories.
If one thinks of our policy, until recently, in the Congo, if one thinks of our policies towards the Portuguese territories, and Portugal in particular, if one thinks of our policies towards the Republic of South Africa, particularly since South Africa left the Commonwealth, one must feel that these ambiguities have done a great deal to tarnish Britain's image and reputation in the Continent of Africa.
I go with the hon. and learned Gentleman in saying that in the leading politicians in the Republic of South Africa we have chosen some rather curious people with whom to do business. The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right. At a time when people in this country—

and, indeed, people throughout the Commonwealth—were engaged in fighting a war against the Nazis, these people who are now in control in South Africa were openly sympathising with the German cause, and more than one member of the present Government in South Africa was imprisoned for subversive activities. We should recognise that in assessing the quality of that particular Government.
There are overwhelming arguments for our Government to introduce a complete arms embargo against the Republic of South Africa. In my view, there are arguments for this both for internal and for external reasons. I imagine that very few people would disagree with the internal reasons. The thought that British arms were being used to enforce the policy of apartheid, the thought that British arms were being used to bring about violent death, is something which few people in this country would be prepared to accept with any equanimity. I think, therefore, that we are probably all agreed that small arms which can be used for internal police purposes should certainly not be sent to South Africa.
An almost equally compelling argument is now arising with regard to arms as a whole. I say this for external reasons. I have felt more and more convinced in the last few months that we are about to see in southern Africa an area in which the possibility of armed violence becomes a probability. This has become even more clear since the Addis Ababa conference, a few months ago. I do not believe that, in our own interests or in the interests of world peace, we should send to a probable area of violence weapons of the kind described by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It seems to me that, as it is almost certain now that the American Government are likely to impose a total arms embargo in the near future, the British Government might well take the lead in this particular instance and do the same. As I have said, I think that there are overwhelming arguments, for both internal and external reasons, for our doing so.
I suppose that we shall be told that a possible penalty for this action would be the loss of our rights in the Simons-town base. I am not sure that this is necessarily a consequence of such action. But, supposing that it were, exactly what assessment do the Government have of


the seriousness of our deprivation of these rights? I can quite see that, when the British Empire bestrode the world, it was necessary to have our communications open to the East both through Suez and round the Cape. I find it hard to envisage circumstances, except of the most academic kind, in which the Simonstown base would be a vital Western strategic interest.
I suppose that one could think up a situation in which, perhaps, war broke out between Malaysia and Indonesia and, for some reason best known to himself, Nasser closed the Suez Canal. It is arguable, I suppose, that the Simonstown base would have some sort of relevance in that kind of situation. But I think it most unlikely that the South Africans would, in those circumstances, refuse to give us in this base the kind of rights we should require. We know that chiefs of staff tend to say that all bases are essential, until the moment when they are given up and they then cease to be essential. I cannot help feeling that there is at least an element of that approach in this case, unless the Government can produce very special reasons for saying that Simonstown has a general utility value far beyond what most of us believe to be the case.
It seems to me that, quite apart from the moral position as regards the South African Government, we ought, as we base or try to base our foreign policy on realism, to assess the future of South Africa and the future of our relationship with South Africa. We hear that South Africa is a very valuable customer of ours. That is accepted; it is known to be so; we can see it from our export figures. But does anybody seriously suggest that the present South African Government will last indefinitely? I would myself believe that in some way or another—unhappily, it looks like being a way involving violence—the South African Government will not last for the foreseeable future. Ought we not to make an assessment on that sort of basis of realism?
Secondly, and I think importantly, ought we not to make some assessment as to whether there is any possibility of the South African Government liberalising their policies without outside pressure? If we felt that they were moving in the

right direction and that outside pressure would merely stiffen their resistance I could quite appreciate that there might be an argument for trying to limit outside pressure to enable them to pursue more liberal policies. This is the reverse of the case. Every action taken by the South African Government during the last two or three years has been sharply in the direction against liberalism and in favour of tyranny and authoritarianism. It must, therefore, be clear to all of us now that unless South Africa is subjected to pressure of some kind there will be no intention on the part of the South African Government of changing or amending their policies in the least.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State a question about the status of our representative in South Africa, who is at the moment Ambassador and High Commissioner, Ambassador to the Republic of South Africa and High Commissioner, and, in effect, Governor, of the High Commission Territories. I cannot believe that this is a function which can satisfactorily be combined for very much longer. I think—I hope, anyway—that it is the policy of our Government to bring the High Commission Territories to full independence as rapidly as we can. It may take five years, it may take more.
We do not, very rightly I think, set a rigid timetable to these matters, but for how long can we have the same man negotiating with our Government as the Queen's representative in the High Commission Territories—constitutions wholly contrary to all the policies of the South African Government—and attempting, as all ambassadors should do, to maintain at least some normality in the relationship between the two Governments? I cannot help feeling that either his capacity to be a British governor will be affected or his capacity to be a good diplomat will be affected, and I should like the Minister of State to tell us exactly what views his Department has on the long-term possibility of this highly anomalous situation remaining.
Finally, I should like to say that I have always felt, for the last five years, that there has been a certain lack of co-ordination between the many Government Departments involved in the formulation of our policy in relation


to the African Continent. I do not know whether we all realise that the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Colonial Office, the Central African Office, and the Department of Technical Co-operation—five separate Departments—all deal with different parts of the Continent of Africa. I have said before, and I think it would be even more true now, that what we require is a Minister of State with special responsibility for African affairs.
I do not wish to suggest that we should try to find a British version of Mr. "Soapy" Williams, but I think that my hon. Friend would probably agree that there is a certain basic sense of purpose about American policy in Africa which has been totally lacking so far as our Government's policy in Africa has been over the last four or five years.

Sir Douglas Glover: Rubbish.

Mr. Berkeley: I do not mind my hon. Friend saying "Rubbish", what I am saying quite carefully is that I do not necessarily approve of all that America does.
I do say that there is an identity of purpose in the American Administration which has not been apparent in the British Government's actions towards Africa during the last four or five years. Irrespective of whether we approve of the particular attitudes that our Government have taken up, identity of purpose is a fairly important part of the external relations of a country. I cannot help feeling that at times there has been a certain basic improbability in the concept that our Foreign Office has had—it is perhaps caricaturing it slightly, but it has enough relevance to make it true—that countries like Portugal matter and countries like Nigeria do not.
I believe that this is a very real, instinctive feeling that we have had in the Foreign Office, at any rate until the last year or so, and I believe it to be a basically wrong conception. I hope that in the coming months we will, particularly now that the Congo situation has been resolved, get a more co-ordinated view in relation to Africa and play a more

courageous rôlein the United Nations than has hitherto been our lot regarding Portugal and South Africa and, as the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich said, regarding South-West Africa.
What we have to realise, whether we like it or not, is that quite likely there will be at least some identity of view between the United States of America and the Soviet Union in relation to the South African problem. If, once again, we get ourselves into the position in the United Nations where we are totally isolated from our American friends, from our Commonwealth partners then I believe that not only is this a most unwise and foolish policy, but also a policy which can cost us very dear in terms of our relationship with the countries in Africa and Asia, whether they belong to the Commonwealth or not. Therefore, I hope that we can see, in the next few months, clarity of mind and firmness of purpose in our relationships with the Afro-Asian Powers and our attitude towards the Republic of South Africa.

9.4 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has raised this important matter tonight. Obviously some of us who are taking part in this debate would wish to take more sweeping measures against South Africa than others might wish to do. What we are concentrating on tonight is a demand for a very limited form of action on which surely it ought to be possible for this House to agree. I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley), which shows that opinion in this country in favour of our taking this action cuts across party lines.
This is not a matter with which we are dealing in a vacuum. It is one of topicality and urgency. At this moment in the Security Council a debate is going on based on the demands of 32 Afro-Asian countries for all the powers in the world to agree that the time has come to do something practical about the situation in South Africa, and the policy of our Government in that debate will be of vital importance from two points of view: first, its effect on world opinion, and secondly, the practical consequences inside South Africa itself.
All of us, of all parties, claim to support the United Nations. But no one will


deny that South Africa is openly defying the United Nations on a dozen points. Consequently, the question we are really debating tonight is whether we are going to help South Africa in her defiance by making it possible in one of the most immediate and practical ways to continue to enforce her apartheid policy.
Surely, by definition, racial discrimination and apartheid are incompatible both with the spirit of the Charter and with the purposes of the United Nations. I agree that an important principle of the United Nations is the one on universality. That is why I am not in agreement with some among the Afro-Asian nations who are now pressing for the exclusion of South Africa from the United Nations, because that seems to me to be violating the fundamental concept of universality.
But we cannot have it both ways. We cannot on the one hand oppose the exclusion of South Africa from the United Nations and then refuse to oppose the exclusion of the majority of South Africa's citizens from participation in their own Government and in world affairs. Yet that is the situation. Out of a population of 16 million souls in South Africa, 13 million are totally deprived of elementary civic and human rights. They have no right to vote for the South African Government who speak in their name. They have no right to be represented in it. They have not even a right to reside in white areas. They are allowed in there only in so far as they serve the interests and needs of the white population, and when they cease to do so, they can be turned out again without any kind of consideration for their equal human needs.
Under the Group Areas Act the most brutal uprooting of African and Indian families is taking place, to the ruin of their homes and the ruin of their businesses. Many are being returned to the areas allocated to them—the so-called Bantustans. This is put forward as a new principle of human relationships, but what it means in cold practical terms is that 75 per cent. of the population of South Africa are having to scrape a living—some of them are not; they are dying of famine—on 13 per cent. of the land They have no trade union rights. As a result, the standard of living is a scandal in a modern so-called civilised country like South Africa, one of the richest in

the world. African babies are dying in South Africa as a direct result of the denial to the overwhelming majority of the population of South Africa of all the rights outlined in the universal Declaration on Human Rights.
The infantile mortality rate is between 100 and 300 per thousand births in the rural areas among Africans, compared with 27 per thousand births among the white population, 90 per thousand in Ghana and 76 per thousand in Nigeria. When we are treated, as we have been recently, to full-page advertisements by the South African Government in the British Press, lauding what has been done for the African people under the principle of Bantustan, let us remember that in that rich country less than 2 per cent. of the national expenditure is being allocated for the direct benefit of Africans.
The focal point of South Africa's treatment in the United Nations is based on the fact that these conditions are contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principle of apartheid is repugnant to the whole concept behind the United Nations Charter, yet the essence of the South African Government's philosophy is based on the principle. That is why this is an exceptional case in the United Nations. This is not just a case of another Government with whose policies or politics we disagree. This is a case of a canker at the very heart of everything we are trying to achieve in this international forum based on all races, political views and creeds.
The conditions are being enforced by repressive laws of a ferocity unparalleled since Hitler. This is not just a piece of Trafalgar Square propaganda by the hon. Member for Blackburn. Do not let us forget that among the white element in South Africa there are thousands who are as deeply shocked as we are by the repressive measures which are increasingly being adopted.
We should note the fact that when the most recent of these repressive measures—the General Law (Amendment) Act—was introduced in the spring, the Johannesburg Bar Council came out in outrage to comment on it and to declare that certain provisions would result in
…the virtual abrogation of the rule of law in South Africa.


The Council was "gravely concerned" at a number of provisions in the Bill which give the police power to detain suspects for repeated periods of three months, and said of the detention Clause
…contravenes the fundamental provision of the jurisprudence of every civilised country (other than totalitarian states) that persons are not liable to be imprisoned without trial.
The purpose was
…to make provision for a police inquisition…Under a system which renders any citizen liable to be interrogated on the mere suspicion of a police officer, abuse and tyranny are inevitable.
On the death penalty Clause, the statement said that the creation of offences retrospectively was
…repugnant to all sense of justice.
That point of view has been echoed by lawyers throughout the democratic world. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich referred to statements by the International Commission of Jurists as long ago as 1960. I remind him that in May of this year they, too, joined in the attack on this repressive legislation and declared, commenting on this new General Law Amendment Act, that South Africa
is now more than ever a police state and in its laws and procedures is copying many of the worst features of the communist Stalinist regime.
It is these impartial judges who are publicly indicting the South African Government for crimes which no democratic community can tolerate. According to The Times of today, the tyranny of the pass laws and the curfew goes on and it is still true that 1,000 Africans per day are arrested and convicted for breaches of pass laws and curfew and other offences which in our view would certainly not be considered crimes.
I remind the House of these facts, of which I know hon. Members are well aware, for the simple reason that it is against that background that we have to consider the supply to that country of the instruments of repression. Is it not clear that no Government which is treating the overwhelming majority of its population in this way can continue to govern without physical repression of a most brutal kind? The question we have to answer in the House tonight is whether the

British Government, in our name, are to go on assisting the South African Government in doing this. It is as simple as that. Are we to put the arms and equipment in the hands of the South African Government to allow it to impose upon its people the worst features of a police State?
On this issue of the supply of arms to South Africa, the Government have hedged and dodged and, once again I suggest, deliberately misled the House. Whenever we have tried in the first place to find out what their policy is, in other words what arms are being supplied, what they are allowing to be supplied, we have been fobbed off time and again with the answer that it is not in the public interest to disclose this information. Fortunately for us, the Minister of Defence in South Africa, Mr. Fouché, is not so reticent, and time and again in speeches in South Africa he has openly boasted of the arms orders he has continued to place with the British Government.
Faced with this fact, we have begun to get a change of tone from the Government, and when at Question Time some of us have risen to protest, time and again we have found that a new note has crept into the Government's replies. We were told as recently as 31st May, by the Minister of State to the Board of Trade:
…we examine alt requests from the strategic, economic and political points of view before they are authorised."—[Official Report, 31st May, 1963; Vol. 678, c. 1786]
We are never given any details. If it is true that the Government have come to the conclusion that they ought to discriminate and ought to bear in mind the political implications, then the House has a right to be informed of that policy and its practical application.
What is the practical application? What is the result of this scrutiny which is supposed to be going on? We know that Saracen armoured cars provided from this country helped to secure the deaths of 67 innocent Africans at Sharpeville. They wore made in British factories. We know that the tear gas to round up people, who might be merely carrying out a peaceful demonstration which would be legitimate in any other country, has been supplied from this country.
Dealing with helicopters, on 24th June Mr. Fouché, the Minister of Defence, boasted in Cape Town that he had placed orders in the United Kingdom
though"—
and I am quoting from an article by the Cape Town correspondent of the Guardian of 25th June—
there is no provision for it in the Simonstown agreement.
This is Mr. Fouché's open admission, so I hope we shall not have that red herring thrown across the scene.
In the same speech he announced that orders had been placed for Buccaneer strike aircraft, and he added gloatingly:
There had been no objections in Britain to these orders.
What he meant was that they were tolerated by the British Government.
I think we all know what this policy of scrutiny amounts to, because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich pointed out, we have had it revealed in The Times today in a report from its correspondent in Pretoria. The Government want to be able to come to the House and say that they are not supplying instruments for internal repression. The report says:
There is not likely to be any difficulty from the South African side about conforming to the reported wish of the British Government that small arms and ammunition should not be ordered from the United Kingdom. As far as can be ascertained, the military equipment on order from Britain, worth millions of pounds, is of a large nature…During a Parliamentary debate last month the Minister of Defence mentioned that Britain had asked South Africa not to ask for small arms and ammunition, and said he had replied, 'We do not buy that type of stuff. We sell it ourselves '.
So much for the policy of scrutiny on the basis of political consideration.
What are other countries doing? We are concerned with the effect of our policy on world opinion as a whole and not, important as it is, merely on opinion in Africa and Asia. We find that the West German Government have laid down a policy that they will not export arms to any zones where there is tension, and everybody knows that there is acute tension in South Africa. They strictly control the export of arms and all strategic material to South Africa.
The United States Government have a slightly different policy. By means of

export licences they prevent the export of any arms which could be used by the South African Government to enforce apartheid, but they add that if the weapon or other equipment
is essentially designed for purposes of national defence—and, in particular, Free World military requirements—exportation may be considered.
Each contract is separately examined. What has America been exporting under that policy? According to the Guardian of 24th June, Mr. Fouché told the South African Parliament
that although South Africa had an agreement with the United States as well"—
that is as well as with Britain—
she had not yet made any arms deals under the agrement".
So when the United States come to consider the armaments that might be exported to South Africa, in effect none has been sent. It is widely understood that the United States has now come to the conclusion that it is time for a total ban on the export of arms to South Africa to be agreed to by the United Nations, and that she will back that suggestion in the coming session.
Hon. Members on this side of the House believe that the Government are not seriously scrutinising these exports. We also believe that it is impossible to draw a distinction between the uses to which the armaments might be put. The Government have tried to argue that the Buccaneer strike aircraft was purely for external use, but the other day I received a letter from the Rev. Kenneth MacKenzie, who is now in St. Colm's Missionary College, Edinburgh, but was formerly a missionary in Nyasaland, enclosing copies of letters which he has written to the Government urging them to ban the export of all arms to South Africa. He points out that in the 1959 emergency in Nyasaland types of aircraft comparable to the Buccaneer were used in low-level unarmed flights to terrorise the population—although not by the United Kingdom Royal Air Force.
It must be made clear that the Simons-town agreement does not provide for this type of equipment. It is quite possible to refuse these orders without violating that agreement. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Lancaster, that it is doubtful whether this base is as important to the freeworld as it once was, but I happen not to want the


Simonstown agreement to be cancelled. It would not be bad for us to have a base in this part of the world—a presence in South Africa for the troubled period that lies ahead. We may want to use it for the free world, against tyranny.

Sir D. Glover: I shall strengthen what the hon. Lady is saying, although I do not agree with a lot of it. We do not have a base at Simonstown; we have the use of that base.

Mrs. Castle: I accept the correction. It still may be useful for us to have the use of those facilities in the difficult years that may lie ahead unless pressure from the outside world brings about a change of government in South Africa.
But there is no doubt about the purpose for which helicopters could be used in South Africa. Only a short while ago I was talking with some of the leaders of the Africans in South Africa who are now in this country. They reminded me that when, in May, 1961, a general strike was called in protest against the declaration of a Republic by Dr. Verwoerd the police moved into the African townships, 10,000 Africans were arrested, the searches went on by night and by day and in the evening helicopters equipped with searchlights were brooding over the townships and picking out the fleeing Africans.
Again, in 1960, helicopters were used in the Transkei when opposition by the Africans to the Bantustan project was brutually repressed by the police, and many deaths were caused by them. Helicopters were used to search for Africans fleeing for cover and refuge in the forest. These helicopters are being ordered from this country.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): Can the hon. Lady say what type of helicopter was used in the operations to which she has just referred?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot say which type was used.

Mr. Thomas: Does she suggest that those helicopters were supplied by this country?

Mrs. Castle: No. I am saying that according to Mr. Fouché, in June of this year he placed a large order for heli-

copters in this country, and that Britain had no objection. I am merely pointing out that a helicopter is an obvious instrument of suppression, and that in the face of the increasingly suppressive measures of the South African Government we should not send a single helicopter to South Africa.
Why is South Africa building up her fighting forces in this way? She has one of the most powerful air forces of any small country in the world. She has trebled her defence budget since 1959 quite apart from expenditure on a highly armed police force. She is mobilising her white people and putting them under training. If it is invasion she fears, why is she arming only the white minority of the population for the defence of the country?
We know that an arms embargo by this country, by every country in the world, would be welcomed by every progressive force in South Africa. It would be welcomed by the Churches of all denominations which have gone on record as expressing their horror at the situation in South Africa and calling, as Joost de Blank did on the radio the other night, for the isolation of South Africa. It would be welcomed by all white students in South Africa. One of the most heartening things which has happened to me was the receipt of a letter from an official of the Students' Society for Human Rights in one of the white universities in South Africa. The House will not expect me to give his name or the name of the university. But he wrote to thank me for the work of the anti-apartheid movement in this country. He wrote:
As you know the fight against apartheid in South Africa itself is being weakened by the bannings of individuals and organisations which are the vanguard of the opposition. At the moment much of the opposition is limited to the universities, but even this is weakening. This is due, apart from general intimidation, to the lack of speakers against apartheid of sufficient calibre and standard—the majority of the leaders are banned…I would like to express thanks to the Anti-Apartheid League for the support and encouragement it is giving us in South Africa in our opposition to apartheid.
Finally, this move would be welcomed by all the coloured members of our Commonwealth. I wish to ask the Government what representations they have been receiving from Mr. Nyerere of


Tanganyika? Is not it a fact that once again not only the Afro-Asian bloc as a whole, but the African and Asian members of our own Commonwealth are demanding that the British Government at least should show themselves fit to be the head of a multi-racial Commonwealth. I wish to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend. May we have a categorical assurance that when the Security Council comes to the discussion of an embargo on the export of arms to South Africa we shall be there, fighting for it—not dodging, twisting or finding excuses or blaming someone else? Let us be there in the van of the fight with the United Nations in a demand for united action by the Security Council.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I am glad that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) took part in this debate. I found myself in agreement with almost the whole of his observations. In particular, I share with him concern at the damage done by the ambiguities in British policy in recent years.
I think it impossible to justify any action that might assist the present Government of South Africa in pursuing its policy of apartheid, or any action which might appear to condone it. Merely to deplore apartheid is of little use. To criticise apartheid and at the same time to encourage or permit the sale of arms to be used to enforce it, is as inconsistent as it is illiberal. But, the question is asked, where do we draw the line? In October, 1960, Mr. Alan Paton, the President of the South African Liberal Party, referred to the training of South African paratroopers in this country and asked:
What do you think these paratroopers are going to be used for?
I remember the occasion very well. I had the opportunity of meeting and discussing this problem with him. I know how concerned he was about the supply of arms to South Africa.
The question he asked was very pertinent. He was, of course, thinking of internal security, but I intervene in this debate to raise a rather wider issue. I do not believe that one can limit this question to assessing the nature of the arms which are being exported and considering solely the question whether they will be used

only for maintaining law and order internally, or whether they are required for generaldefence with South Africa as part of our Western defence system.
I am afraid there is a temptation towards double talk on this whole subject. It is suggested in some quarters—although not by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot)—that one can stop the export of arms to South Africa while not affecting employment in this country. I do not think that is true. We have to be frank and recognise that it may affect employment; in this country. It has also been suggested in some quarters that it is possible to collaborate with the United Nations and at the same time honour our agreements with South Africa on Western defence, including the Simonstown Agreement. I am not sure that that is so. We must look at this frankly. Is it possible? We must look at the facts.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich referred to the question of South-West Africa which is now before the International Court. It may well be that very soon a decision will be reached by the International Court and that it will be adverse to South Africa. The Security Council will then be asked to take steps to implement the recommendation, or to take steps arising out of the decision of the International Court. I have always taken what I think is a consistent view on this subject of South-West Africa. So far as South Africa itself is concerned, it is at any rate arguable that a policy of apartheid is a matter of internal policy. I do not agree with it, but it is at any rate arguable. I do not think it could ever be contended, however, that what has gone on in South-West Africa is simply a matter of the internal affairs of the Government of South Africa.
It is quite clear that there is a mandate there and the Government of South Africa are only there at all in the position of trustees. It is quite clear that there has been a breach of the Mandate and there would be a very strong case for some United Nations force to be sent there. That may happen; we must recognise that possibility. Arising from that, there is a very real danger of a clash between some United Nations force and the forces of the South African Government. What would be the position of the British Government in those circumstances?
This is not just a hypothetical case; it is something which might happen. What use would be made of the arms which have been already sold to South Africa, and are still being sold? Generally when this subject is discussed or raised in the House it is pointed out on behalf of the Government—it has been pointed out by the Lord Privy Seal—that there is careful inspection and that one of the factors taken into account was the possibility of arms being used for internal repression, but we must consider these wider aspects.
What does South Africa intend to do with the arms which she buys? For example, a reference has been made to the Blackburn Buccaneer fighter. This fighter is a twin fighter-bomber designed ordinarily for the Navy. It is designed to fly low to evade radar screens. I understand that it can carry a small atomic bomb. It may be suggested that this is obviously part of the Western defence system, but I am not so sure that it is. One has only to think of the reports of the use of planes by the Egyptians in the Yemen. Even if these planes are not likely to be used against African demonstrators for maintaining internal security, they could be very useful against any task force operating in South-West Africa, and in the same way this kind of plane could be used against African States to the North.
That brings me to what is potentially an even more explosive situation—namely, the possible conflict between South Africa and other African States. This is the last thing which I want to happen, but it would be foolish to turn a blind eye to the possibility. I repeat, what will these arms be used for? It may well be that the low-flying aircraft are not intended to be used against the people of South Africa who are now being oppressed by the policy of apartheid, but will they be used, is it any more likely that they will be used, in a conflict between East and West? It is very difficult to think of circumstances in which these planes could be used for that purpose.
They might well be used in some future conflict between South Africa and other African States. Even if that does not happen—and it is the last thing that I wish to happen—we must consider the

reactions in the meantime to the export of these arms to South Africa. May I read a short extract from one of my correspondents:
If the West continues to regard the white South African Forces as an asset in any Western defence assessment and therefore continues to aid and abet the arms build-up, the West will ipso facto be excluded from the preparations that the African States are making and the Western Powers will almost come to be regarded by the African States as accomplices of Verwoerd.
One cannot ignore the conference at Addis Ababa. Those who attended were not just a few extremists. We have in Africa all the makings of a very dangerous situation. We must look at the facts and look a little further ahead. Already there are promises from China to some of the countries of Africa. Perhaps in one respect this is to the good. I believe that there may now be an opportunity for co-operation between Soviet Russia, the United States and Britain to try to prevent an outbreak of war in Africa. I believe that Soviet Russia is not anxious to see a conflict in Africa, certainly not if China is taking any part. But China is looking for new allies, and it would be unrealistic to assume that in discussing this question we are considering only whether arms which are being exported will be used as an addition to the police forces or for some major Western defence. They could very easily be used in the future in some conflict in Africa. That is what I fear.
We must consider, in the light of all this, whether South Africa, with her present Government, is not an embarrassment to the West. It is very unfortunate that that should be so, but I believe that we have reached the situation when South Africa is an embarrassment, and it would be very much better if we no longer regarded South Africa, under the present Government, as a necessary part of the Western defence system.
If that is so, what are we to do? At least we should be honest about it. I think of how we dealt with Portugal. I am no admirer of Portugal. I have taken part in debates on the actions of Portugal in Angola. I am not at all sure that we were very honest with Portugal over Goa. We had our longstanding treaty with Portugal, but when Goa was invaded we did nothing about


it. Would it not be more honest now, therefore, to reassess our position vis-à-vis South Africa and our whole defence system and our agreements relating to defence? That would be a more honest thing to do. We should at any rate discuss this with the other Commonwealth countries and the whole of the Western Alliance, because, after all there is a changing climate. Before long Canada may decide upon an embargo. We know the attitude of the United States. Italy and Germany have already decided not to export arms to South Africa. There is only France, and I am not sure how long France will continue to be willing to do this. As for other sources, I believe that the arms from what are called unauthorised sources have been drying up since the end of the Algerian war.
Therefore, I believe that some agreement on the banning of arms to South Africa by a number of countries, including Britain, is a practical proposition, and I advocate it not merely because I regret the actions of the Government of South Africa and the policy of apartheid but also because I want to prevent the build-up of arms in the continent, which might lead to such an appalling conflict in the future, the outcome of which we can scarcely foresee. In the days before the last war the civil war in Spain was a prelude to the Second World War. What a tragedy it would be if a conflict in Africa were the prelude to a Third World War, but it is in that context that I believe this subject must be considered.

9.47 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: Everybody who has listened to this debate will regard it as tragic that it should take place, but, none the less, it is of great interest. There can be few people in the United Kingdom today who support the South African Government's internal policies. Most people look upon the whole idea of apartheid with distaste and, in many cases, horror. This is part of the great problem confronting the world. In the United States, over 100 years ago, a civil war, perhaps the most bitter in human history, was fought over the freeing of the slaves because as a result the Confederate States wished to secede from the Union.
Even today, 100 years later, as the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who has spoken so movingly about the problem of South Africa, knows, the problem, at very nearly the same intensity, exists in the Southern States. In this matter the United States cannot stand in a white sheet and criticise the United Kingdom Government for their various actions. The United States has its own problems.
Last year, I was at the United Nations. Even if I say it myself, I enjoyed the friendship and, I think, respect and understanding of an enormous number of African and Asian politicians who were at the United Nations. What bothers me about these debates in the House is the idea that nowadays if a person's skin is white he must automatically be wrong, but that if his skin happens to be a darker shade, he must automatically be right. I do not think that the issue can be stated as simply as that. These people are torn by the same dissensions and pressures as we debate in the House.
For instance, I was shocked and surprised to learn that the Africans think nothing of the West Indians, because, in their view, the West Indians are descendants of slaves. I should have thought that in the history of the coloured races this would have caused Africans to have enormous respect for the West Indians, but they have just the reverse opinion of them. The people in every country in Africa are torn between tribal and racial inter-rivalry.
On the question of South Africa we are worried, disturbed and, I think, disgusted over the policy of apartheid. At some point in each speech tonight hon. Members have pointed out that South Africa's policy of repression has got worse since 1959. Of course it has, simply because the people there are frightened. This may seem a strange thing to say about a Government who seem so strongly entrenched in power, but they are frightened—and when people are frightened they inevitably take repressive measures. The South African Government are frightened because—as the hon. Member for Huddersfield West, (Mr. Wade) said—they fear that in a few years there will be the threat of an invasion from north of their borders. They fear that that will become a valid threat


to their territory, for they have already been threatened with this becoming the policy of the North.
The more the world tries to isolate South Africa, the more South Africa will have this phobia for internal self-sufficiency. Although I do not like their policy, I am sure that the more we debate the United Nations and the more pressure is put on South Africa in this country, the more determined one will make South Africans to go in for their policy of isolation and apartheid.
I am disturbed to hear that because of recent events the English South Africans are now rallying to the Nationalist Party; something that must disturb all who want to see the present situation in that country change. They are doing this because they feel that their own nation is threatened. If a nation is threatened all the social reforming zeal that should be growing and flowering dies and thought is solely upon solidarity and protection against the threats from outside. I believe, therefore, that much of what we are doing is making the situation in South Africa worse instead of better.
I leave the matter there and turn to the question of armaments, which is the principal point of the debate.

Mr. John C. Bidgood: I am finding it difficult to hear my hon. Friend, because of the noise that is going on on the Opposition Front Bench.

Sir D. Glover: I am not in charge of the Opposition Front Bench, but I must say that the noise was bothering me.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich Mr. D. Foot) made great play of the fact that at the moment a frigate is on order. This was followed by his hon. Friends trying to show how this and other armaments could be used for internal repression. I cannot for the life of me see how one could possibly use a frigate for that purpose. I would have thought that the frigate being constructed in this country was bringing much-needed orders to our shipbuilding yards, represented part of the Western defence and that it certainly could not be used for any other purpose.
As a businessman, if I wanted some aeroplanes or weapons for internal repression I would not think in terms of paying £1 million a time for Buccaneers. These aircraft, of the naval strike type, are designed for external and not internal use. If one wanted to produce aeroplanes for internal use I do not think that one would wish to buy those with speeds of 1,000 m.p.h., because at such speeds they are not accurate enough to be of use as internal weapons.
If one wished to obtain weapons for the sort of use hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley)—who, I regret, is not now in his place—are discussing, have they not realised how quickly such weapons could be manufactured in Africa? The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn made great play about the use of Saracens. I recall that in 1940, when we expected to be invaded within weeks, ordinary lorries were taken off the streets and were armour-plated on their sides and underneath to prevent them being destroyed. Such vehicles were capable of carrying troops and weapons at considerable speeds.
I am quite certain that it would not take South Africa many weeks to produce that sort of force to deal with internal problems. The Saracen scout cars are dangerous weapons—any weapon designed for war must, by its very nature, be dangerous—but, apart from the convenience of having them there, I do not think that it would be much to ask South Africa to produce what I might call home-made material equally effective for the purposes the hon. Lady described.
That applies to so many of these arms. If we deprive South Africa of the type of arms that she is getting, all we shall do is to reduce her effectiveness, in that she will get no more frigates, no more Buccaneer strike aircraft for the Navy—weapons designed for external use—and will force her, because she will not be deprived of them, to open a factory to make the equipment, the Saracen scout cars; force her to increase her small arms manufacture. In other words, we will force her to arms production that will not be controlled or under licence and that, I think, would be far more dangerous than the present system. That is quite apart from the fact that, in doing so, we should deprive an enormous number of


our people of jobs in producing these weapons.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is not present, because I want to refer to what he said about the Trustee Territories. The only thing he said with which I agreed was about the anomalous position of the ambassador and the High Commissioner. This is an absurdity. I do not see how a man can be an ambassador to a foreign country and a High Commissioner for Commonwealth territories—particularly when there is the additional difficulty that those Commonwealth territories are inside this independent country. I do not see how he can divide his mind between wanting to be friendly with the South Africans, as ambassador, and wanting to do his job as a High Commissioner. I hope that the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Foreign Office will look at this position, because I think that it could be improved.
But when my hon. Friend says that these three High Commission Territories should be given their independence at the earliest possible moment—because, I presume, of the attitude of the South African Government—I shudder to think how woolly minded some of my colleagues can get. He says, rightly or wrongly, that the South African is Fascist, a grinder of a population, and unable to consider the rights of minorities, or majorities without votes. He then says that the territories inside this area should be given their independence, meaning that the United Kingdom would then have no responsibility for them. How long do they then remain independent?
If my hon. Friend's view of the South African Government is right, it seems to me that our duty is to lead these three territories to the maximum amount of self-government. Speaking for myself, they can all have a Prime Minister responsible for all internal affairs, but if my hon. Friend really believes that there is in South Africa the sort of Government he describes I should have thought that, automatically, Her Majesty's Government had responsibility to keep control of these territories, so that if there were any question of taking them over, the South African Government would know that they were dealing with the United Kingdom, and not with three almost defenceless territories,
It is a very serious thing to say, "Independence at once." Responsibilities do lie upon this country. Here, I should have thought, almost more than anywhere in the world, we have a responsibility in keeping an end control over the destinies of the three High Commission Territories because, otherwise, their future will not be very much to write home about.
I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I am glad that I have because some of the things which I have said needed saying. The debate has been rather one-sided so far. I conclude in this way. By persuasion and example, we should do all we can to help the advancement of the South African people towards a better understanding of the problems in their country. But, when I look about the world and see in how many other places where these problems have existed for at least as long, if not longer, people find them just as difficult to solve.
I am convinced that we shall not solve them by making the Government of South Africa and the people there, both Afrikaner and English, feel that they are the pariah dogs of world society. If we do, we shall only succeed in making them determined to produce a police State, impregnable from outside and from within, and this will mean that, if there is any change, it will be a change with a massive blood-letting which everyone in the House would deplore.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I am sure that his purpose was to come to the assistance of the Government, but many of his remarks, particularly with reference to the supply of arms to South Africa, were contradictory. The Government can be contradictory on this matter without any assistance from anyone else, and I dare say that we shall have that sort of answer from the Minister of State in due course.
First, the hon. Member for Ormskirk says that the arms which we are sending to South Africa are not for internal use. Secondly, he says that the South Africans are themselves quite capable of manufacturing the arms they need for internal purposes. Thirdly, he says that, if we


stop sending them arms, they will manufacture more of these weapons for internal use.

Sir D. Glover: I did not say that they were manufacturing them at this moment. I said that, if we put an embargo on, we shall force them to create their own arms industry.

Mr. Foot: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's three arguments were contradictory; they are not the same argument at all. I shall not go into them in detail, but that is how it appeared.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks at the beginning of his speech illustrated what is wrong with the whole of the Government's approach to this question. The hon. Gentleman deplores that we should have debates in the House on this matter. He deplores that there should be debates at the United Nations about apartheid. He thinks that all the world-wide discussion about the conduct of the South African Government is only forcing the South African Government to be more intensive in the application of their objectionable methods.
The hon. Gentleman is in this difficulty. The course which he recommends the rest of the world to take is one which would spread black despair among the Africans who happen to have the misfortune to live in South Africa. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that all those in South Africa who are trying to resist apartheid take a view exactly the opposite of the one which he advocates. All those people, whether they believe in violence or non-violence, whatever their method for objecting against what is being done to them by the South African Government, plead that the rest of the world should take note of what is happening in South Africa. It is very strange, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should presume to think that he knows better what is good for the Africans who live in South Africa than the Africans themselves. I shall come back to his argument in a few minutes.
Much of what I had in mind to say on the subject has already been said better by others, so I shall be as brief as I can.
Although there is not a large number of Members here, this debate is one of great importance for the good name of

this country and for its world-wide interest, and the reply of the Minister will be studied in many countries. It will probably be studied by many more people than live in this country. Many countries in Africa will study it very carefully. Therefore, it is important that he should reply to the debate carefully, and it is necessary that he should reply to it in much more specific terms than we have had from the Government in response to previous debates and Questions about this matter in the House.
The Lord Privy Seal said the other day, in response to a Private Notice Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle):
As far as arms are concerned, Her Majesty's Government's policy was described in detail in the House by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of State during the debate on the Address on 31st October last year."—[Official Report, 22nd July, 1963; Vol. 681, c. 1053.]
I looked up the debate. I could not recall that the Minister had made a detailed statement of what was the policy. I discovered that that supposedly detailed statement of policy on this matter, which is one of great interest to the nations of the world, and as has been said, is being raised by 32 nations at the United Nations, could be got into less than one column of Hansard. It was on 31st October that the Minister gave what the Lord Privy Seal said was a very detailed statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
I find that it is not even a policy referring solely to South Africa. It is a policy which the Government apply to all countries in the sale of arms, and there is no distinction made for South Africa specifically because of South Africa's policy of apartheid. If anybody doubts that let him look up Hansard. The Minister said:
Our arms policy towards all foreign countries—and, of course, South Africa is a foreign country as far as we are concerned—is to allow arms sales to countries with whom we are in normal relations. South Africa is a sovereign country and as such has the right to buy arms for external defence. We scrutinise all requests from the political as well as the strategic and economic aspects before they are authorised."—[Official Report, 31st October, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 286.]
That is not a policy which is devised largely to deal with the challenge presented by what the South African Government are doing to 30 million of their


citizens. It is a general policy which the Government apply to all countries. How does the hon. Gentleman think that is right? Because the British Government apparently take the view that it is not necessary to have a distinctive policy about the sale of arms because of what is happening specifically in South Africa.
The Government were challenged earlier in the week about whether they had made some modification of their policy under pressure from the Opposition, the United States and the United Nations. They tried to deny that any change has been made. It may be that the Minister will say tonight—it will be a deplorable thing if he does—that the Government have made no change in their policy. Whether this is so or not, as indicated already by quotations which my hon. Friends have made from The Times of today, from that report from Pretoria, it would appear that the British Government have made some alteration, because the report says:
During a parliamentary debate last month the Minister of Defence"—
that is, the South African Minister of Defence—
mentioned that Britain had asked South Africa not to ask for small arms and ammunition.
So apparently what the British Government did was not to be courageous enough to say to the South African Government, "We will not send you any more small arms", because that would have been too forthright an action for the Government to take, but to say to the South African Minister of Defence, "It would be very convenient for us it you would not ask for arms." I do not know whether pusillanimity could sink any lower. Surely the Government could speak on this matter much more boldly than that.
It has been said by my hon. Friends that Italy, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Israel, most recently, have made declarations about refusing to export arms to South Africa.
It has already been quoted, too, by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), that Communist China and Czechoslovakia may be thinking of sending arms to South Africa. They have sent trade delegations there. I suppose that the Minister may say that that is

justification for their argument—that if we do not sell them arms other people will come in. But he will not be able to deal with the problem in that way.
If it were proved to be the case—I do not know whether it is, and if the Minister can give us information on the subject we should very much like to hear it—that Czechoslovakia and Communist China were sending arms to South Africa, we should have quite a lot of protests from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They would say that it was a shocking thing for them to do. We shall have no grounds at all for protesting against their doing it if we persist in doing it ourselves.

Mrs. Castle: I think it only fair to the Czechoslovakian Government to point out to my hon. Friend that whereas, in the past, they sent certain small arms for domestic purposes, a total ban on arms to South Africa has now been imposed by that Government.

Mr. Foot: I am very glad to hear it, and I am sorry that they sent arms before. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members opposite are laughing about it. The Government which they support are still sending arms to South Africa. It is not a matter for them to smirk about. At any rate, apparently some pressure has been brought to bear on the Czechoslovakian Government, and what we are trying to do is to bring some pressure on our own Government to see whether they, too, will adopt a civilised attitude towards this matter.
The real condemnation of the Government's policy is that they do not appreciate the scale of the intensity of feeling about apartheid. That was very well-illustrated by the hon. Member for Ormskirk. He talks of being concerned and disturbed about what is happening in South Africa. He views the apartheid policy with distaste. I do not think that it is possible to regard the apartheid policy in South Africa merely with disaste. That is the Government's attitude. That is the impression that they give to the world, that we do not like apartheid and think it objectionable, and whenever the matter is raised in the United Nations we make our formal protest against it. But what the Government fail to say is that they have a sense of outrage about what is happening in


South Africa. We cannot show the world that we have a sense of outrage about it if we are sending arms to assist, perhaps, in the suppression.
What is happening in South Africa is not so very different from what Hitler did to the Jews in the concentration camps in Germany. It is the same policy of brutality aimed at people because of their race. What we are doing, in effect, is to help supply some of the instruments for use in the gas chambers. That is what we are doing. It is no use hon. Gentleman opposite saying that these are exaggerated words.

Mr. Ronald Russell: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence of gas chambers being used in South Africa at the moment?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has followed me. We have no evidence of gas chambers being used in South Africa. I did not say that we had. I said that what the South African Government are doing to 13 million Africans is not so very different from what Hitler attempted to do to the Jews. That is grind them down and prevent them from having any life worth living. This is where this attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite comes out. They apologise for what is happening in South Africa.
The hon. Gentleman talked as if some people got things out of proportion and sometimes said that all white Governments were right and all black Governments were wrong. That is not the position at all. Here we have a Government whose major policy is to brutalise and impose hardships of an indescribable nature, intensified week by week and month by month, on a whole people. What would hon. Gentlemen do about it? What would they think about it if they had black skins?
I should like every member of the Government, when he goes away for the Recess, to read a book recently published by Mr. James Baldwin, in which he describes what the American negro feels about what is happening to him in the United States and how infinitely worse is what is happening to the coloured African in South Africa. If hon. Gentlemen would read that book and try to think what it would feel like if they were

coloured people, then I think they might understand the position, and, instead of coming along and making these evasive and prevaricating excuses about why we should continue to send arms, they would show a sense of anger about what is happening there.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite acted on that basis, they would have a wiser policy—maybe it is no good appealing to their emotions—because what we are going to do at the moment is to isolate ourselves, perhaps with only Portugal and the Union of South Africa on our side. As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) said, it is utterly pitiful that we should have to have a debate of this nature in this House and have to argue about whether we shall send a few more arms to South Africa. Sending them will not do us any good. We may make a bit of money out of it and it may mean a few more people in employment, but the consequence will be that the whole of our reputation in respect of the coloured people, the whole of the reputation built up over the years by actions which have been magnanimous and wise, will be cast aside.
There is no doubt—and the Government must recognise it—that the test of what is thought by every coloured person in the world about Her Majesty's Government and our country is what we do about South Africa, and as long as we continue to send arms to South Africa or assist the South African Government in carrying out their policy, so we shall injure our prospect of binding together in association with us the nations in the Commonwealth and the nations that we want to assist us in furthering our policies in the United Nations.
Therefore, I ask the Government not to be content with the kind of formal excuses which they have given before, but to take the whole of this policy away and have the courage eventually to come back to the House and say, "We have abandoned the whole idea of giving any shred of support to apartheid because we believe this to be the most evil thing in the whole wide world".

10.18 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I hope that I may be permitted to say without any


sense of patronage that we have had a very high standard of debate. I am very conscious of the fact that hon. Members on both sides have spoken with deep feeling and real sincerity about this very difficult and, indeed, very topical subject.
I want to join issue in a small measure with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). As I understood it, he appeared to suggest that Her Majesty's Government were not truly sincere in their expressions of abhorrence of apartheid. I want to make it perfectly clear what the view of Her Majesty's Government is on this matter. We have frequently, not only by statements, but also by demonstration, shown our complete abhorrence not only of apartheid, but also of the measures used to enforce it.
Our views have been expressed not only in this House and in another place. They have been expressed forcibly in the United Nations, where we have voted for resolutions condemning South Africa's racial policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has even spoken against those policies in the very Parliament of South Africa itself.
We have not neglected any opportunity to bring home to the South African Government our real disapproval of these policies and our dismay at their continuation. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cape Town this year invited non-Europeans to the Queen's Birthday celebration. Those who know South Africa today will appreciate how strong a public demonstration of the British Government's position that was. To suggest either in terms or by implication that our policy towards South Africa and our relations with it imply some sinister, clandestine support for its racial policies is absolute nonsense, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale knows it.
The racial policies of South Africa are the direct opposite of what we believe in and practice here and in the territories for which we are responsible. We believe that any system based on racial discrimination is morally indefensible and leads inevitably to disaster. I know that the hon. Member does not like this word, but we are greatly concerned about South Africa. But that concern is not just with the system that is practised, which we

deplore. We are also concerned for South Africa itself, with which we have had for many years close and valued human and material links. No country, apart from South Africa, has so great an interest as we have in seeing a solution to South Africa's racial, problems which will ensure a full, prosperous and free life for all—and I repeat, all—its peoples.
We think, and I believe that we are right, that our influence with South Africa is an influence to the good. We are, therefore, opposed to the severing of those links with South Africa that remain. To break those links would not only drive South Africa into further isolation but would greatly discourage and perhaps drive to despair the many South Africans, in particular the Europeans mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who are opposed to apartheid.
I am conscious that we are sitting late tonight and I apologise for having made these preliminary remarks, perhaps at length, and I will come now to the basis of the debate. I have been asked to explain the Government's policy on the supply of arms to South Africa.
This matter was raised in the House by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn on Monday when she received a reply from my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. He referred her to a statement I made in the debate or 31st October, 1962, and reference has been made today to a statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, on 31st May last following an adjournment debate. What was said on those occasions has been criticised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale because there was not sufficientdetail apparently, and by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich because of certain ways in which it was phrased. I would suggest that this is a clear statement of policy—one may disagree with it—but it is that we believe that South Africa, like other foreign countries with whom we are in normal relations, is entitled to buy arms for external defence.
Then we said on these occasions which I have mentioned that we examine all requests from South Africa from the strategic, economic and political points of view before they are


authorised. This is the important point—the possibility that a particular supply of arms may be used for measures of internal repression is taken into account. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn wondered whether we did scrutinise. I can assure her that we do. The South African Government knows that we do and knows exactly what our attitude is about any arms which are requested which may or could be used for internal repression. Reference has been made in the debate to various arms and perhaps I can reply to some of the things which have been said.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn referred to Buccaneer aircraft. Let us be quite clear about this. Buccaneer aircraft are long-range, naval aircraft now coming into service with the Royal Navy. Their performance, I am informed, and their rôle make them quite unsuitable for use in suppressing civilian disturbances.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) about the use of the Russian Ilyushin bombers for the massacre of civilians in the Yemen and why Buccaneers should not be used for a similar purpose?

Mr. Thomas: I do not know that that is a particularly valid point in as much as any aircraft, presumably, could be used for bombing purposes and presumably would be used for those purposes if there were an attack on South Africa. We are talking about weapons which are likely to be used for internal repression, and surely the hon. Member does not think that a highly sophisticated naval aircraft would be used for internal repression. I suggest that that is quite wrong.

Mr. George Wigg: Which mark of the Buccaneer is the hon. Gentleman talking about, Mark I or Mark II?

Mr. Thomas: I am afraid that I am not sure, but I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know. I take it that it would be Mark II, because they are very up-to-date aircraft.
Reference was made to what the South African Minister of Defence, Mr. Fouché,

recently said in a speech in Capetown about Westland Wasp helicopters which that Government has ordered from a British firm. I can tell the House that Her Majesty's Government approved the supply of some Westland Wasp helicopters to South Africa last year. We know of no more recent orders. The Westland Wasps are naval helicopters and are being introduced as standard equipment in the Royal Navy which employs them primarily in an anti-submarine, weapon-carrying rôle.

Mrs. Castle: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that helicopters are obviously a highly suitable instrument for internal repression, that helicopters have been used for that purpose in South Africa in the past? Will he give the House an undertaking that the Government will not authorise the export of any more helicopters to South Africa?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady about these helicopters which are used for naval purposes in our joint defence system for the Cape. I know that South Africa has bought and has aircraft from other countries. From the information I have, that these helicopters are used for naval purposes, I think that they would be unsuitable for the purposes which the hon. Lady has in mind.
If I may refer to the frigate mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, under the terms of the Simonstown agreement we agreed to supply the South African Government with 12 naval vessels. All these have now been delivered, except this one frigate. Under the agreement this will be delivered next year and after that no more of these vessels would be delivered under this Agreement.
It is quite true, as has been said by hon. Members, that under the agreement there is no general commitment on Her Majesty's Government to supply arms to South Africa. However, the supply of such items as the Buccaneers and helicopters I have mentioned are in our view consistent with the general purpose of the agreement, which is co-operation between our two Governments in the general defence of the sea routes round the Cape. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn also mentioned Saracen armoured personnel carriers which were used—and we were all horrified at this—at Sharpeville. These were supplied to South


Africa in 1955, when she was a member of the Commonwealth. No such vehicles have been supplied since South Africa left the Commonwealth two-and-a-half years ago. We have had no order for submarines, nor have the South African Government recently ordered military vehicles from Britain.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) about the dual rôle of the Ambassador in South Africa. Both of them appeared to think that this dual rôle was not a rôle to which they would give their support. This dual rôle has also been criticised in South Africa, but for reasons entirely different from those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster.
We have considered this matter carefully. It was raised during the debates on the South Africa Act and careful consideration was given to it at that time. We still remain of the opinion that, in view of the vary close way in which the problems of the territories interlock with South Africa, the present arrangement is the most suitable, but I assure my hon. Friends that this matter will remain open to re-examination if circumstances should seem to require it.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West referred to South-West Africa. That question is under discussion now in the International Court of Justice and the court's findings are not expected before the end of the ear. I am sure that the hon. Member would accept that it is quite impossible for me to anticipate what would be the findings of the court and what action the United Nations would seek to take about them or what attitude we would take to any such action. The hon. Member suggested that the arms which are in South Africa might be used against what I presume he meant as a United Nations task force in South-West Africa. I would point out to him that the question of military action in the case of South-West Africa has never been suggested in the United Nations, and it is somewhat improper to suggest that it might happen at this juncture while the case is sub judice.
I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich what would be our attitude to events which will be taking place shortly in the Security Council and

he asked me some questions. The Security Council is meeting at the moment to consider the question of the Portuguese territories and apartheid. It is likely to get on to the latter question next week, and in that debate no doubt all aspects of the situation in South Africa will be reviewed. We, like other Governments, wilt have to consider our position in regard to the points which may be made.
I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy if I say that I cannot anticipate the resolutions which may be placed before the Council, or the instructions which may be sent to Her Majesty's Government's representatives about any particular text. As in all debates in the Security Council, we shall be faced with a developing situation, and we have to decide on out attitude in the light of the resolutions tabled there.
The issue has been brought before the Security Council in response to the requests of 32 African Foreign Ministers, and it is right that we should hear what the African representatives have to say on their behalf. Our objective will be to do what we can to encourage the emergence in South Africa of racial policies which are more in harmony with world opinion and the realities of human relationships.
As I said in the debate on the South Africa Bill nearly eighteen months ago, we want to help, not to hinder or complicate this process, and this is the end to which our actions in the United Nations, as elsewhere, will be directed.

Mr. D. Foot: Will the Minister answer the question I put to him? I asked whether, if a complete arms embargo were proposed at the Security Council, Her Majesty's Government would support that proposal. This is not something new. This is not something that cannot be anticipated. Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman's speech that Her Majesty's Government have not been able to make up their mind on this issue?

Mr. Thomas: That is hypothetical, because the memorandum which is before the Security Council contains many recommendations, of which the arms embargo is but one, and one would have to see the resolutions before making up one's mind what instructions to give to our representative.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I shall not keep the House for more than a few minutes, but I want to press on the Minister and on the Foreign Office what I am sure will be a very novel point of view. When they supply arms to a country, will they look at the supply of such arms in realistic terms? I am willing to lay myself open to a charge when I ask them to put moral considerations on one side and to look at the problem realistically, not in the interests of South Africa, but in the interests of this country. I know that it is extremely novel to ask Her Majesty's Government to look at defence policy in terms of the military requirements of Britain.
One of the problems about South Africa—and I am going to try to put all moral considerations on one side—is that they are pursuing a policy that cannot succeed. It is like putting a fast motor boat in a canal. If the motor boat is driven fast enough, one of two things will happen, either a wave will build up in front which will prevent the boat passing, or all the water will be washed over the countryside and the boat will be grounded.
The policy of the South African Government is similar to that, and one cannot find a better example than the oft-repeated jibe from the more ignorant of the Government supporters on the benches opposite—and that is saying something—when they talk about Simonstown. Simonstown in modern terms is not worth tuppence. It is completely out-dated. It is outmoded, and it is in the wrong place. It is clear that political conditions are so unsettled that the use of it, even if one had a war like where the last one left off, would not be a very good bet.
There are a couple of possible substitutes. There is Sierra Leone which was used extensively in the last war. Secondly, there is the new port of Tema which is being built in Ghana, and I wonder whether the Government, when looking at the naval requirements of this country, have ever examined the possibility of getting facilities in Tema for the British Navy? The advice that I have received from those who know something about these matters is that no one is worried two pence about Simonstown, except in exclusively political terms.
Likewise, turning from Simonstown to the Buccaneer aircraft, we must face the arguments put up by hon. Members opposite. They say, not being the least concerned—or so they would have us believe—with the interests of the South African Government, that if a Labour Government imposed an embargo upon the Buccaneer it would create unemployment here. I do not believe anything of the kind. The Buccaneer Mk. II is a very useful weapon, and it will be badly needed by the Royal Air Force. I am glad that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) is now here, because he knows something about the history of the Buccaneer. It was origin ally the NA39, and it was rejected by the Royal Air Force and subsequently taken over by the Navy. The Royal Air Force preferred the TSR2.
Now that the TSR2 is in the balance—the order has been delayed, and this is one of the things that is worrying the manufacturers knowing the previous form of the Government in these matters—if the Buccaneer Mk. II is the success I believe it will be, and the TSR2 is cancelled, I am sure that although the Royal Air Force rejected the Mk I version both the Navy and the Air Force will want it.
But the Buccaneer Mk. I is a different story. While it may be true, as accepted by the Foreign Office—knowing the effect of various weapons is not something that would disturb the sylvan calm of the cloistered life that its officials lead—that the Mk. I would not be of much use if it came up against real opposition, it would nevertheless have a useful purpose as a low-level attack weapon, which could be used, in certain circumstances which one can easily visualise, for internal purposes in South Africa. The idea that the Mk. I is of no use is a piece of political nonsense.
If the Government are pursuing an arms policy in terms of the money to be made out of it, I have nothing to say; they are simply selling where they can, irrespective of the consequences. It is the sort of argument that any gunsmith might produce if he sold a pistol to a hold-up man who subsequently murdered a policeman. It is a valid argument, which has been trotted out with more care and sophistication than I am using now. I am not suggesting


that the Government are following this policy. What they are pursuing is a sort of halfway house between something that is a policy and something that is not. If anything, it is a policy of expediency. In their weakened condition the Government cannot now face even the opposition they would get from hon. Members opposite below the Gangway if they faced the stark realities of the situation; so they will go on doing what they are doing now, regardless of the military consequences to this country. It is a sure way of keeping the South African set-up on the boil.
In the long run the South African Government cannot possibly win. Therefore, I should have thought that the interests of this country lay in providing military support for, and in equipping and training the forces of those countries which, ten years from now, will have some hope of political stability, so that they can play their part inside the United Nations in building up the only permanent basis—inside the framework of the United Nations—of a conception of world unity and the rule of law. But the Government are following the opposite policy. They are backing a certain loser, as usual. I do not know when they have backed a winner. They are backing a policy which is bound to lose in the long run.
I am sure that the Minister is utterly sincere. I accept everything that he says and that the Government say, about their feeling of abhorrence at South Africa's racial policy. They are English gentlemen. They hate this sort of violence. It is sordid and horrid, and all their feelings and emotions are against it. I accept all that. But by their policy they are prolonging the present situation, and preventing the day of settlement. At the same time, they are seriously wounding the chances of this country's enlisting military support in areas where, one day, we may badly need it.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I apologise for coming late, but the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to me, and I wish to ask, does he mean that the Buccaneer II, which is due for delivery to South Africa, I believe, in the early months of 1965, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government being in control then and this aircraft being prevented from delivery to South Africa,

the Royal Air Force would have to take them regardless whether they are good or bad, to save the unemployment situation? Would the hon. Member further argue that by exporting transport aircraft to Peking and China we are right when it could be a menace to one of our close allies in the Commonwealth, India? Would he say that would be right? We have heard no protest from the other side about that.

Mr. Wigg: I never said anything so dotty. I can only assume that the hon. Member has just come from a meeting of the Defence Committee of the Tory Party and mistakes me for them. I did not say, and do not say, that the Royal Air Force has to take these aircraft.

Sir A. V. Harvey: What is it to do?

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member asked me a question and I am replying to it. I did not say that the Royal Air Force has got to take this weapon or any other. The hon. Member knows me perfectly well and must not be disingenuous. He knows the history. The Royal Air Force would not take the NA39 because it thought there was a better bet. So the Navy took it and the Mark II is a better weapon. The TSR2 is in doubt.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Sir A. V. Harvey indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member shakes his head. Although the Government placed an order they placed it only for production and there is no firm order. This is a doubtful starter. If the present Government are there long enough and have to cancel the TSR2, the Royal Air Force would have to wait to take the Buccaneer Mark II. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. It cannot be supplied to South Africa and given to the Royal Air Force as well. If the TSR2 is cancelled the Royal Air Force might be glad to get it. If not, I do not mind, but I ask the Minister whether it was the Mark II which was in question.

Mr. P. Thomas: The Mark II.

Mr. Wigg: It is an academic argument and it will not come up until1965, so we can save our breath. I shall certainly save mine because long before 1965 the hon. Member and many others will not be here. It will be settled by a Labour Government at that time.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (ELDERLY PERSONS)

10.48 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I am glad of this opportunity because, for the first time, I am speaking in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill at a reasonable hour of night and, secondly, I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be glad to hear I am not fighting a battle. The battle has been won already. I am concerned only with finding how the detail of the policy affecting people of limited means as laid down in the White Paper is to be put into operation.
I straight away congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on at any rate giving consideration to a section of the community who, I think, have been neglected by all parties and all Governments. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have imaginative and creative minds, and I am glad to pay them this tribute.
But I want to get clearly on record how my right hon. Friend proposes to implement the rather sketchy plans outlined in the White Paper. I want my hon. Friend to dot the i's and to cross the t's, so that when I fight an election I may be certain that the community realise what they owe to the thinking which has gone on since my right hon. Friend took over the Department of Housing and Local Government.
On 16th July I asked my right hon. Friend a Question to which the Parliamentary Secretary replied: I asked the Minister,
whether he will devise a special housing programme for elderly people of limited means who could pay an economic rent without coming under local authority or benevolent society or National Assistance control, planned so as to provide supervision essential to those who are not able to live alone without some care and attention.
My hon. Friend replied:
I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper on Housing (Cmnd. 2050), published in May, which contains proposals for both an increase in subsidised housing for the elderly and the provision of housing at cost rents by housing societies. I have every reason to suppose that the schemes brought forward by housing societies will include some suitable

for people of the kind my hon. Friend has mentioned; this is something that my right hon. Friend welcomes."—[Official Report, 16th July, 1963; Vol. 681, c. 39.]
I am therefore pleased that tonight I need not fight a battle. I immediately rushed for the White Paper, because I had already seen a summary of its proposals and of all that would be done to help housing a variety of people, including the elderly. I hoped to find a specific paragraph giving details of how this difficult problem would be tackled. I will mention a number of paragraphs but hon. Members need not fear that I shall quote them all; they can all read them for themselves. A number of paragraphs make some reference to the problem, but not in sufficiently precise terms to suit my purpose. I have noted paragraphs 33, 38, 41, 49 and 50.
Paragraph 50 is sub-headed "The Elderly". The White Paper having outlined what will be done for the elderly, the paragraph continued:
This is still not enough. Many more houses for the elderly will have to be built, and in greater variety than now to meet their special needs. Many old people find it difficult to live without help in bungalows or flats of the orthodox kind. They may be better suited by grouped flatlets; small places which are convenient and in which whilst still living behind their own front door with their own belongings, they can enjoy the benefit of some communal services maintained by a warden for the whole block.
That is very pleasant indeed and it would gain acceptance among people throughout the country.
In all these paragraphs there is no mention of the central organisation which will be charged with the task of finding out the people to be dealt with under these proposals, people who will be only too delighted to learn that my right hon. Friend has thought about them. I was speaking the other day to a friend of mine, a widow of limited means. She lives in a small house of her own. She cannot find anybody to cut her hedge. She cannot find anybody to help her with cleaning the house. She is becoming worried about what will happen in the future. Many people are faced with the same problem. My friend said to me, "The trouble is that everybody thinks that it is sufficient to offer those living on limited means, who do not have to


have recourse to the taxpayer, money or tax relief." This is not the solution.
I am very grateful for the fact that my right hon. Friend has thought about this matter. However, it is very important to know how we are to begin to organise life for the people referred to in the White Paper. In all parts of the country there are single persons, widows and married couples living in their houses who are uncertain about how they are to lead happy, contented and secure lives. No guidance is given in the White Paper, except the statement that this will be the responsibility of housing societies. In villages, small market towns, and even large towns, what body will start to find the people who need housing provided for them without recourse to the taxpayers and for which they can pay an economic rent? This is what my right hon. Friend can help me about tonight.
There are masses of retired professional people. There are a large number of people who worked in industry and who saved. There are nurses, schoolteachers, university professors and lecturers. There are widows of Service officers. All sorts of people would like to know how, when and to whom they can make representations with a view to obtaining the benefits of the housing referred to in the White Paper.
I fully realise that the major problem must be dealt with by local authorities, or even by benevolent associations, or even by mutual household organisations. The point about the mutual household organisation is that the people for whom accommodation is provided find themselves isolated in the country, a long way from any town centre. Therefore, the accommodation is not necessarily suitable for them. Benevolent associations will build blocks of flats, and subsidies can be obtained from various sources to maintain the people in reasonable comfort on a subsidised rent. There is local authority Part 3 accommodation. There are aged people's bungalows, which have been so welcome. However, it is difficult to say where one would begin to find an organisation in a town or a village which would seek the people who would welcome accommodation of the type referred to in the White Paper. One does

not know whether housing associations would have the time to devote to this section of the community.
I have had the advantage of discussing this matter with my right hon. Friend and I have found him understanding and enthusiastic. I hope that I interpret his view correctly when I say that he seems optimistic. However, I am not one of those who always believes in the optimism of Ministers. I have had far too much experience of the activities of local authorities. I have in mind the situation where a housing association has been set up with the agreement of the Minister and where money has been collected for the purpose of establishing housing accommodation for the elderly, with the assistance of Government grants. Even then local authorities have not met the requests of the housing association. Having been in the unfortunate position of having to press my right hon. Friend on such matters, he has told me that he has no power or that there is nothing he can do to impose his will on a local authority if it fails to play the game.
Now that we are developing this new housing policy, I do not want to find the position of those about whom a great many people care left in the hands of, perhaps, a housing council which devotes most of its time to the other problems that come its way. Despite all the advantages in the White Paper, even if they are all carried to a satisfactory conclusion, I cannot decide what type of body or individual will carry out a survey and then start the ball rolling by providing the essential housing accommodation which will be no charge on the taxpayer or ratepayer but which will bring immense benefit and satisfaction to those who look to the Government for housing security.
I have been concerned about these people for many years. When the White Paper was; published I thought that it contained imaginative proposals. I want to be able to go to the citizen's advice bureau or other body in any area and be able to show that there are concise statements on how to set about getting applications from people, remembering that many of the folk with whom we are concerned are of a retiring nature. They do not like to make a fuss. Often they suffer in silence. Thus the initiative must


come from someone, and tonight I want to get this matter cleared up.
I am prepared to accept that my right hon. Friend has this matter in mind. I am proud of my party. When I saw the pocket edition of the housing proposals in a Conservative Central Office booklet I did not find in it a single reference to this section of the community. It occurred to me that if they were not in that booklet, how could anyone expect the various bodies and organisations to which I have referred to delve into the White Paper proposals to find them; that is, with the certainty of being able to build up an organisation which could be of such immense benefit to those living on limited incomes?
I therefore want to be told precisely how my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend visualise this development, so that the details can be circulated to the citizens' advice bureaux and all the other organisations that are interested in these people. I have given my hon. Friend an easy task. The battle is won, and I know that he, my right hon. Friend and all of us feel very deeply on this subject.

11.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) has raised this question, because the White Paper had of necessity to condense some of the details of its projects. Indeed she may be interested to know that the first two or three drafts were about twice as long as the White Paper, which is itself a fairly long document.
My hon. Friend has asked for guidance about how the White Paper's proposals are to be put into practice, and the type of body or individual envisaged to carry out the survey to which she has referred, and so get the ball rolling. My hon. Friend is clearly not concerned with the local authority aspect which, basically, is subsidised housing, or with the benevolent or charitable organisations, such as the Guinness Trust and others, which have for many years made a considerable contribution towards housing those who cannot afford an economic rent. She has rather in mind those who can afford such a rent, even though they are not particularly wealthy.
The clear answer is, as my right hon. Friend has very much in mind, the whole idea of the housing association movement. There are two basic methods by which a housing association can go about its task. One is the co-operative method, where the tenants and the members of the association are the same people. This is probably less attractive to elderly people than it is to younger people because, very often, elderly people will not wish to be concerned with the management of the housing whereas younger people may well be able to take part of this task on themselves.
The housing association method clearly has considerable advantages for old people very largely because they can borrow on their collective security, in which case the age of the tenants becomes of minor importance, whereas this is not so with a building society.
I think that the agency which my hon. Friend has in mind is the National Federation of Housing Societies, which employs a development officer for old people's housing. The development officer is concerned to help the various bodies—nearly all voluntary, such as the Rotary Clubs, the W.V.S. and so on—which are interested in forming associations with a view to meeting the need to which my hon. Friend has referred. The development officer's main task is to try to help these bodies, to put them on the right lines, help them over procedure, raising the necessary finance, and so on, and in bringing together the various people who are interested in helping to meet the needs of the elderly in appropriate ways.
I can tell my hon. Friend that the progress which is being made is encouraging, but of course, as she will appreciate, we have, to date, experience only of schemes under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, under which the sum available was limited to £25 million, and the approach was not specifically directed towards the elderly, largely because at that stage we felt that to give any specific direction with regard to the housing of the elderly might have the effect of making local authorities feel that we were setting up something which would relieve them of the obligation to carry on with local authority housing for the elderly which, of course, is so important for those who cannot afford an


economic rent. I am glad to say that, each year since 1950, the number of houses suitable for elderly people as a proportion of the total number built in the country has steadily risen. In 1951 it was about 7 per cent., and in 1962 it was just over 30 per cent. The curve has been even throughout.
In 1962, there was a record number of new housing associations, 85 in fact, and about half of them were aiming to build exclusively for elderly people. In addition to these associations already formed, a number of experiments and pioneer schemes are being worked out, and some of them are very promising. For instance, one proposal is for a housing association to buy up houses which have become too large or too expensive for elderly occupiers and owners to maintain. When a house has been bought, a self-contained flat is given to the original owner, and other units of accommodation are made available in the same house for other elderly people, usually, except in very large houses, single people. This, of course, has a double benefit in that it relieves the owner of the expense and worry of trying to maintain a house which has become over-large, and it also ensures that the house is eventually fully occupied.
Another association is thinking of building blocks of flatlets and of offering tenancies in them to owners of houses which have become a burden to them in one way or another in return for an annuity, and then use the houses for conversion into units for other elderly people. But I think I should perhaps warn my hon. Friend that these ideas have certainly not come to the stage at which an approach could be made to my Ministry. Nevertheless, I think it does illustrate that people are very much alive to the possibilities; they are not being content simply to go on the time worn track of the old charitable societies. They are looking for new ways, and in many cases exciting ways, to help these people, and I am sure that with encouragement and support they will grow into something quite formidable as the new scheme outlined in the White Paper takes over, with more money available and with a central body to help still further.

Captain Walter Elliot: My hon. Friend has mentioned these

various housing associations. There are, in addition—for instance, in my own constituency, two—elderly people's homes which have been opened by voluntary effort assisted by the local authorities. Is there any means by which all these associations and voluntary efforts are drawn together, so that what exactly the problem is may be known, and people can be accommodated?

Mr. Corfield: There is the National Federation which exists for that purpose of giving individual housing associations a forum where they can exchange experience and at the same time publicising the experience of individual societies which will be of value to others or to the movement asa whole. There is not a national survey of needs in the sense I think perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind, because housing needs are matters for the local authority, and I do not think there would be much object in duplicating the survey side.

Dame Irene Ward: This is exactly what I do want my hon. Friend to get on to. It is not a question of the local authority. All these people have no desire that it should be.

Mr. Corfield: With due respect, my hon. Friend is taking me up on something I did not say. What I am saying is that the local authorities should be—and in most cases are—the main source of local knowledge. I am not suggesting that it is necessarily for the local authority to house the people she has in mind. I have been trying, indeed, to outline to her the function of the National Federation of Housing Societies in helping to produce this kind of house, which will be managed by the housing association entirely free of the local authority. All I am suggesting is that I do not think it would be the most productive use of the money available to carry out a survey which would largely duplicate the knowledge which we can already get from local authorities. It is a question of the number of old people in housing need. Then, within that, the housing societies and associations will, I have no doubt, be able on a local basis to build up their local associations with fairly full knowledge of the sort of need which exists locally.
But the great thing is to get the associations off the ground, and, as I say, encouraging progress has been made, and I have no doubt that more progress will be made more rapidly as each housing association's experience inspires others to follow. I would remind my hon. Friend of the background and some of the recent history. There are powers in the Housing Act, 1957, whereby local authorities can assist housing associations, and under that Act a housing association may qualify for the subsidy which is available to local authority housing. This is probably, I think, what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) has in mind, that his association, to which he referred, was in receipt of a subsidy, in the same way as local authority housing. This is a means which can be of value, but, clearly, it is not what my hon. Friend for Tynemouth has in mind. I know that the association with which she has been concerned in the past has stood to benefit under the 1957 powers, and I know that she has had an unfortunate experience with it. But this is something quite different from what we have been discussing this evening and from what she is mainly concerned with.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would my hon. Friend help me on one point at this stage? Has a local authority statutory powers to give what amounts to a mortgage to a housing association of this kind in the same way, particularly on elderly property, as it has power to give a 95 per cent. or even 100 per cent. mortgage to an individual?

Mr. Corfield: The short answer to that is, yes.
Perhaps I may elaborate a little on what has been done up to date. I am informed that of the 2,500 odd dwellings which are to be provided in 44 schemes which have been approved under the 1961 Act, about 10 per cent. are houses which by their size and accommodation and so on are suitable for old people, and they include 214 one bedroom flats and 54 bed-sitting room flats with estimated rents between £3 and £5 a week. There is the W.V.S., which is building a block of 33 bed-sitting room and one-bedroom flats without subsidy for letting to pro-

fessional people, which my hon. Friend has in mind. Another association is providing a group of 36 bed-sitting room and one-bedroom dwellings for old people. This will be with a subsidy, and it will be part of a more general scheme including 118 accommodation units—to use a rather unfortunate expression—of all kinds.
So the lesson is being learned that old people do not want to be secluded. I agree that some of the homes that my hon. Friend has in mind are now sometimes rather isolated in the country. Nevertheless, they serve a very valuable purpose. There are many country people who would prefer to live in the country during their retirement and benefit from the additional conveniences there, despite the isolation, rather than in the town, particularly where there is a warden and someone who can provide transport. In some cases these houses have available to them their own cars and chauffeurs. I think they fulfil a very useful purpose, and I hope that we shall not dismiss them as making no valuable contribution.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the general problem which she has in mind is being met. The whole movement is inevitably to a large extent in its infancy. We shall have to see how it develops. But there is no reason to believe that it is not going to get off the ground in a satisfactory manner, and that, indeed, can be seen from the examples which I have quoted, which have come about in the very few years in which loans have been available and the National Federation has been in a position to give the lead that it is giving today. It is a separate organisation from my Ministry, but we help to some degree in financing and staffing it. We keep in very close touch, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to do so, and I shall be only too happy to keep her in touch with developments as time goes on.
The actual formation of a housing association depends on voluntary effort in our villages and towns. I doubt if there is a more valuable social service that any hon. Member could do than to try to encourage and help people to form them and to put them in touch with the National Federation. If they can do so, I can assure them that they


will get every help and encouragement from my Ministry. It is something we would very much welcome. The faster is goes the better we shall be pleased.
It is not often that a Minister, albeit a junior one, stands here and asks people to spend Government money but in this case the sooner that £25 million is bespoke, and a good proportion bespoke for this particular class of people, the more pleased we shall be.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of what my hon. Friend said about the National Federation, has he in mind to appoint representatives from the associations to the proposed housing council? Would not he agree that that would be a way of getting this off the ground?

Mr. Corfield: I do not quite follow what my hon. Friend means by "housing council". Does she mean the local authority housing committees?

Dame Irene Ward: I was under the impression from the White Paper that there is to be a housing council of some sort to operate this whole thing and that people would be appointed to it.

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend is referring to the central body which will be responsible for the loans to housing associations. That body will no doubt work very closely with the National Federation. I am quite sure that they will work together to their mutual benefit.

Orders of the Day — SECURITY COMPANIES (LABOUR RELATIONS)

11.28 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Before broaching the subject of which I have given notice I will make a brief comment on the debate initiated by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), for I am very deeply interested in the subject. I congratulate the hon. Lady on having initiated that. I believe there is tremedous scope for voluntary activity in housing. What has been done in Scandinavian countries particularly shows the enormous possibilities of co-operation in housing associations.
I would only say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary before he leaves the House that in Slough, where housing is the major problem, the price of land and the restrictions on the land available for housing make the prospects of housing associations almost impossible. In areas like that there must be Government action of a much bolder character, going beyond what voluntary effort can be achieved if there is to be any solution of this problem.
I want now to deal with the question of a company which has contracts with Government Departments and which has dismissed employees because they are members of a trade union. I have raised this matter more than once in the House and I have given notice that I would at the earliest opportunity deal with it in greater detail.
First, however, I want to say how much I regret that the Minister of Labour is unable to be here because of physical weakness. He has had the courtesy to express an apology to me on that ground, and, of course, I accept that apology, hoping that at the very earliest moment he will be restored to full health. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not only reply to the points which I shall raise, but will report to his right hon. Friend on any matters with which he is not able to deal.
The company I refer to is called Securicor Limited. It is a company whose purpose is to protect property and bullion in transit. It is the largest company in the country handling this work. It has


contracts with a considerable number of public corporations which have been established under the authority of the House and in association with Government Departments. It has contracts with B.O.A.C., B.E.A., London Transport Board, the Southern Electricity Board, the Southern Gas Board, the Metropolitan Water Board and the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): On a point of pure clarification. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that this company had contracts with Government Departments. He somewhat qualified that with his following words and spoke of various corporations and nationalised industries, which I accept. We have checked as far as we can—he will appreciate that there are limits to this—and we have no information about this company having Government contracts with Government Departments. I should like to be clear on that point.

Mr. Brockway: I am doubtful whether I said what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Whitelaw: We will see in Hansard. If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, I entirely withdraw what I said.

Mr. Brockway: I doubt whether I said what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I thought I made it clear that I was referring to public corporations associated with Government Departments and which had the authority of the House and the Government. If I said more than that, I regret it. I very much doubt whether the Official Report will indicate that the hon. Gentleman's precipitate interruption was justified.
The issue which I wish to raise is of tremendous importance. My only regret is that I have to raise it at half-past eleven at night when attendance in the House is necessarily limited and when the issue will not secure the proper attention it deserves. I propose, first, to give a record of the facts.
On 3rd September, last year, Mr. Fred Walker, who is the southern district officer of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, wrote to Mr. Keith Erskine, managing director of

Securicor Ltd., asking for an interview with a view to learning the attitude of the firm towards the establishment of a trade union within it. He met Mr. Erskine on 11th September, and Mr. Walker states that he was given an assurance that no employee would be dismissed for joining a trade union. The managing director did not concede that the firm would negotiate with a trade union, but Mr. Walker did not press this, because negotiations would arise only if a trade union organisation were established. Mr. Walker took the precaution of writing to Mr. Erskineon the following day, including the assurance that the firm would allow a trade union to be established, and Mr. Erskine did not repudiate this letter which he received from Mr. Walker.
As a result of that assurance, which was conveyed to the employees of the firm at the Slough branch, on 3rd October 32 employees enrolled in the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. They paid 5s. 6d. to cover four weeks' membership of the union and the cost of the union's rule book.
Two days later, Mr. Keith Erskine, the managing director, telephoned Mr. Walker, the district trade union officer, that he had been informed that a trade union branch had been started at the Slough depot and he proposed to stop it. Mr. Erskine went to Slough and, addressing the men, asked them to sign a statement that they would not continue any association with the union. He offered to reimburse them the 5s. 6d. which they paid in union contributions and for the rule book.
Under that threat, most of the men signed the statement, withdrew from the union and accepted from Mr. Erskine reimbursement of the 5s. 6d. The men who refused to resign from the union were dismissed by the firm. I admit that I am not clear whether the number was five or seven, but whichever it was the principle remains that these men were dismissed by the company, which has contracts with public corporations, on the ground that they had joined their union.
Of course, Mr. Erskine did not say that they had been victimised on that ground. He said that they had been victimised on the ground of reorganisation. There would seem to be no doubt, however, that


the real reason for their dismissals was membership of the union. Why, otherwise, were the five or seven men picked out who had declined to sign the statement withdrawing from the union?
When Mr. Walker, the district officer of the union, heard of the trouble, he sent one of his officers, Mr. Biggin, to the Slough depot of Securicor, Ltd. Mr. Biggin was refused admission to the firm, but the managing director invited him to tea in the neighbouring restaurant. Mr. Biggin asked that he should be accompanied by one of the men. Mr. Erskine rejected this request and denied that he had ever given an assurance that trade union membership would be allowed by the firm.
Mr. Walker then telephoned Mr. Erskine offering to talk over the difficulties. Mr. Erskine refused to see him. Mr. Walker expressed surprise that the managing director had denied his assurance that union membership would be allowed and drew attention to his letter confirming this.
On 11th October, Mr. Walker wrote to Sir Philip Margetson, the chairman of the board of directors, offering to see him or to meet the board. Sir Philip Margetson declined to meet the trade union representatives. On 2nd November, Mr. Walker saw Mr. Smith, the Chief Industrial Officer of the Ministry of Labour. On 13th November, Mr. Smith informed Mr. Walker by telephone that the managing director of this company, which has contracts with our public corporations, had refused to discuss the matter with an official of the Ministry of Labour.
Subsequently an effort was made to bring about a settlement by conversations between Lord Williamson, who as Sir Thomas Williamson was the general secretary of the union, and an hon. Member who sits opposite who was a director of the firm. This effort to settle the matter by discussion failed, and no decision was reached regarding the dismissal of these men as trade unionists.
I first raised this matter in the House on 18th December. I asked the Prime Minister if he would give instructions to Ministers responsible for Government Departments that contracts should not be given to firms which would not allow their employees to become members of

their trade unions. The reply was given by the First Secretary of State on behalf of the Prime Minister. In that reply he drew attention to the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons on 14th October, 1954, which required that
 '…the contractor shall recognise the freedom of his work people to be members of trade unions'.
After I bad pressed him, the First Secretary said:
Officers representing my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour visited the firm, and I understand that the company has given an assurance that all its employees are free to join any trade union they wish."—[Official Report, 18th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 1078.]
This statement was repeated when I again reverted to the issue in the House on the 8th July. The Minister of Labour then made the definite statement:
…the company has given a categorical assurance that it has not dismissed employees for the reason that they are trade union members—
and there was this further exchange:
Mr. Brockway: It dismissed them all.

Mr. Hare: I have received categorical assurances that this is not so."—[Official Report, 8th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 841.]
I submit to the House that those replies by Ministers are contrary to the record which I have given.
In the Slough depot of this company more than thirty men joined their trade union. The managing director went down to the depot and presented them with an ultimatum. He told them that they must sign a statement saying that they were withdrawing from the union. All but seven did so. The managing director reimbursed those who withdrew from the union. He paid them their union contributions and the cost of their rule books, and within four days he dismissed the seven men who had refused to withdraw from the union.
If the Minister is not aware of those facts, and if he cannot interpret them as meaning that this company, which has contracts with our public corporations, dismisses its workers simply because they are members of a trade union, he must be completely unaware of what is happening in this company. Such a firm should be excluded from any contracts with any public corporation which represents Parliament, a Government Department, or the nation.
Mr. Keith Erskine, the managing director of this company, is acting like an industrial fuehrer. He is fascist-minded. He is exerting an influence within this company which is quite intolerable in this democratic age, and every contract which this firm has with a public company should be ended at once.
That is only part of my indictment against this firm. I propose now to submit to the House evidence to show that Securicor Limited is presuming to regard itself as an industrial M.I.5. The firm of Complete Security Services Limited is a subsidiary of Securicor Limited. The two firms share the same accommodation, and have as their chairman Sir Philip Margetson. The letter which I have here was written by the firm of Complete Security Services Limited in an effort to secure clients from firms in the Hounslow and Feltham areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) is indisposed and cannot be here, so I should perhaps tell the House that he has taken up this matter with the Ministry.
I consider that no company in this country should have been responsible for writing a letter of this nature. This company has claimed for itself powers of espionage among the workers of this country. The letter is headed,
Complete Security Services Limited,
54/62 Regent Street, 6th Floor,
Piccadilly Circus, London, W.1.",
and is marked "Private and Confidential". It says:

"Dear Sirs,

Most business concerns however scrupulously managed, lose an appreciable amount of money each year through pilferage. This pilferage takes the form, not only of petty larcenies from stock, but also of misuse and wastage of time by employees, mismanagement or laxity of discipline on workshop or stockroom floors, and falsely entered figures on time sheets and vehicle schedule sheets.

In some form or other, this is taking place in your Company at this moment. We specialise in preventing this unwarranted sharing of your profits. Our services include:—
(1) The supplying of undercover agents—a man planted among your employees to provide you with a complete appraisal of any unauthorised happenings.
(2) The following of vehicles used by employees during the course of their work.

(3) The investigation of thefts, frauds and embezzlement.
(4) Reporting on any person who may be suspected of causing dissention or inciting employees to defection.
(5) The screening of prospective employees—a search into their antecedents and background.

Our agents are carefully selected and thoroughly vetted and their methods of approach, discretion and loyalty are of the highest standard.

Our consultant will be pleased to call to advise you, without obligation or cost, as to the most practical method of dealing with your particular problem.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgnd.) L. Davenport, Manager—

Complete Security Services Ltd."

I do not believe that any hon. Member, when he is able to read that letter in the cold print of our Official Report will be able to justify a private company's putting in among the employees of a firm underground covers of this character to expose the activities of the employees of that firm. This is an unspeakable denial of the whole sense of liberty and democracy of this country—and that a company of that kind should have contracts with our public corporations is a situation whch should be ended tomorrow, if not today.

I want to sound this warning: despite the hour at which I am raising this matter, and despite the small attendance in this House, this will become a foremost issue in industrial relations. The trade unions will not stand for it. The Slough Trades Council has already forwarded a copy of this letter and the facts to every trade union in this country. We shall have—rightly—strikes at firms which are serviced by this company, which dismisses men for being trade unionists and which applies to this country, contrary to all the British ways of life, the aspects of industrial gangsterism—the extra-State police methods—which are more familiar in Chicago than here.

Finally, I urge that this security service, the protection of factories at night, the protection of wage packets as they are taken from the bank to the factory, should not be in the hands of a private company with uniformed staff with truncheons on their bodies. It should become a public or industrial service. It is intolerable that we should have within


our society a private force which in effect is a police force, uniformed and weaponed to act in this way, particularly a company which has the Fascist mind which my record of facts has illustrated.

This, in effect, is an extra police force in our society. The chairman of the board of directors is, as I have said, Sir Philip Margetson, who is the former Assistant Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. The members of this private police force staff are almost entirely ex-Service officers and ex-police officers. I recognise that in those two circles we have men of the highest character and men of devoted service, but when there is established a private force in our country recruited in that way and officered in that way we have a very grave danger to the democracy and liberty of this country.

If an industry requires this protection, it should be provided in one of two ways. In large industries it should be possible within themselves to organise the necessary protective service. The large monopolies should not have to rely on an extra police service controlled by a private company for the profit of that company. This should apply not only to the large industries. I suggest it should apply to all the public corporations of the country. If they cannot organise their own protection, their organisation must be inadequate.

In smaller industries any service of this kind should be a public service. It should not be a weapon carrying, uniformed service under private control. It should not be independent of the public supervision which I have urged. This is the bigger issue which we must face, but tonight we should make it clear that in the view of this House the dictatorial control of this company should not be regarded as compatible with service to and contracts with our public corporations associated with the Government of the country.

I have raised issues of the greatest importance. I regret that I have to raise them at this time. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on some of the immediate concrete points I have raised and that later this House may be able to give its consideration to the bigger, long-term issues I have raised.

11.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): With the leave of the House, I will speak again in order to reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). The hon. Member is right to raise this subject, because we all recognise the immensely important rôle which trade unions play in our industrial society. We also value highly the fundamental right of the individual worker to join the trade union of his choice. We should therefore consider carefully any allegation that discrimination is being practised against workers who join a union and are dismissed from their employment on that account.
I will, therefore, start by setting out the facts, as far as they are known to the Ministry of Labour, relating to the particular activities of Securicor Ltd., to which the hon. Member referred. The Ministry of Labour were first approached about Securicor Ltd. at the end of October, 1962, when an officer of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers alleged that seven employees of the company's branch at Slough had been discharged because they were union members, despite the fact that the union had been given an assurance by the company that employees joining a union would not be dismissed on that account. The union requested the Ministry to take up this matter with the company. It also sought the Ministry's help in arranging a meeting with the company at which the union might discuss with them the general question of relationships between the company and trade unions.
Early in December officers of the Ministry had discussions with the chairman, Sir Philip Margetson, who, as the hon. Member said, was formerly Assistant Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, and Mr. Keith Erskine, a solicitor, managing director of Securicor Ltd. These gentlemen confirmed the assurance given to the union that men would not be dismissed because of union membership. In explanation of the dismissals at Slough, they said that the reason had not been union membership but the fact that the men were no longer regarded as suitable for security work.

Mr. Brockway: If the hon. Member believes that, how does he reconcile it with the statement of Mr. Keith Erskine to the men that he had never said that trade union membership would be allowed; and with the fact that he said to Mr. Walker, the district secretary of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, that he denied that he had ever agreed to allow trade union membership? It was on that ground that he asked them, to sign a statement withdrawing from the union.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member has referred to the high standing and qualities of character of these gentlemen. They have given categorical assurances to the Ministry to the effect that the men would not be dismissed because of union membership.

Mr. Brockway: But they were.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member must appreciate that when one is given assurances of that sort from people of that standing one is bound to accept them. On this occasion, the company representative also claimed that he made ii clear to the union that the company did not consider the normal form of trade union organisation appropriate to the type of work on which the company was engaged and that, while permitting union membership among employees, the company would not encourage the spread of trade union organisation among its employees or recognise the union for negotiating purposes.
The hon. Member will recall that when he raised the question of these dismissals in the House on 18th December the First Secretary of State undertook to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend with a view to contact with the firm. I am sure that the hon. Member will be the first to appreciate that success in delicate negotiations of this sort greatly depends on correct timing. Against the background of the events which I have just described, my right hon. Friend did not think it opportune to attempt immediately a further approach to the company. On 3rd April the union again asked for the Ministry's help in arranging a meeting with the company. This request was immediately placed before the company by our officers, and on 30th May the managing

director told us that his board adhered to its policy towards trade unionism and therefore saw no useful purpose in meeting representatives of the union. This information was conveyed to the union.

Mr. Brockway: Did the firm also refuse to meet the officers of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am seeking to set out the facts very carefully as they are known to us. I would like to stick very directly to what I am saying, because it is very important to try to give the history as we know it. I should add again at this stage that the managing director of the company yesterday repeated to an officer of the Ministry the previous assurances that the company does not dismiss employees because of trade union membership. In all these circumstances, we have to decide what is the best course of action. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the most profitable course would be for the Ministry to continue its efforts to create a better understanding between the two parties.

Mr. Brockway: It has been going on for ten months.

Mr. Whitelaw: The House will be interested to know that the Ministry is persevering in this and that a further discussion between our officers and representatives of the union is to take place next week. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about the Fair Wages Resolution and the other point later. As to the discussions, the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that I do not want to say anything tonight which would make it less easy to obtain the result and the understanding everyone is seeking.
I have dealt with the facts so far as they concern the most important question—the freedom of workers to join a union. I come now to the question which follows logically from this, the question of recognition. Full recognition and negotiating rights should depend on the union being reasonably representative of the employees concerned and on the employer voluntarily deciding to recognise the union and negotiate with it. This is really a matter on which the employer and the union should reach agreement. This does not mean that employers can with impunity


refuse to recognise unions which are representative of a substantial proportion of their employees. In such circumstances unions have shown more than once that employers have an important interest in recognising them. Where agreement on full recognition and negotiating rights is not reached, it is often possible for the two sides to agree that a union should be entitled to make representations in respect of its members employed in the firm concerned. Securicor Ltd.has informed the Ministry that, while it regards the normal relationship between trade union and employer as inappropriate for the type of work on which the company is engaged, it would not be averse to arrangements somewhat on the lines of those in the uniformed police force. Again on this matter, I think that the Ministry's rôle is not to seek to impose any particular pattern, but to assist the two sides in exploring fully the type of machinery which would both meet the special operational needs of security work and at the same time enable the union effectively to help its members.
The hon. Gentleman suggested, as he has done on previous occasions, that an important impact might be made on this problem if the nationalised industries were called upon to include in their contracts clauses incorporating the full requirements of the Fair Wages Resolution passed by the House in 1946. This Resolution requires Government contractors to observe what may briefly be described as the recognised terms and conditions of employment in their industry. It also places upon contractors the obligation to recognise the freedom of their workpeople to be members of trade unions. There are provisions for dealing with complaints and various other procedural matters, but the main substance of the Resolution is in the provisions I have mentioned. The Resolution itself has no statutory force and its application is restricted to contracts placed by Departments of the central Government. It was for that reason that I interrupted the hon. Gentleman at the start. I am sorry if he felt it was precipitate. It was not my intention to be discourteous or difficult. I wanted to be quite clear on this very important matter. The Fair Wages Resolution does not, therefore, apply to the nationalised industries. It applies only

to Departments of the central Government. Nevertheless, it is the general practice of these industries to include in their contracts clauses based on the Resolution. This practice is not universal, but in the case of Securicor Limited I understand that certain nationalised undertakings do have contracts with the firm and that these do not have fair wages clauses in them.
Decisions about the contents of contracts placed by the nationalised industries are, of course, matters for the management boards of those industries. As the House will be aware, the boards are autonomous in matters of day-to-day administration. It would scarcely be consistent with the autonomy of these industries for the Government to impose an inflexible rule that fair wages clauses must be included in every contract laid by a nationalised industry.
I have already indicated that it is the general practice to include such clauses, and this the Government naturally welcome. I am sure that the House shares this feeling. The real issue with which we are concerned tonight is that of the exceptions. I would assure the House that my right hon. Friend will consider further in consultation with the Government Departments concerned what the hon. Member for Eton and Slough has said tonight. I emphasise that the Fair Wages Resolution does not require contractors to recognise trade unions. The House will, therefore, appreciate that even if the full terms of the Fair Wages Resolution were imported into all contracts placed by the nationalised undertakings, this would not, by itself, ensure that the contractors would recognise and engage in discussions or negotiations with trade unions.
As I have indicated, the question of recognition often resolves itself, given a little time, once a substantial body of employees has exercised their freedom to join a union. In such cases it is necessary, first, to create a basis of understanding between the company and the unions concerned. I can assure the hon. Member that this is exactly what the Ministry of Labour is seeking to do in this case and what it will always do in any similar cases which may arise in future.
I must now refer to the letter from which the hon. Member quoted. He


read a portion of the letter which was sent out and I think that, in that event, it would probably be fair to all concerned if I read, equally in full, the statement made by Sir Philip Margetson, chairman of Securicor Limited, about this matter, which was given to the Press and which, I understand, was reported in the Daily Herald on 23rd July. The statement was dated 22nd July and it said:
Following the publicity which our Investigation Division received as a result of the counter-ambush at Forty Acre Lane, East London, on Friday, July 19th, I feel I should give some general details of its work. The Securicor Investigation Division, the largest in Europe, exists in order to prevent wastage of national resources caused by theft in commerce and industry. It has been recovering property at the rate of£1,000,000 per annum, a figure which is steadily increasing and it is impossible to say how much it has saved. It is estimated that altogether industry including the vital export trade loses approximately £100,000,000 per annum from major larcenies and pilfering, a direct charge of wages and dividends.
This is an important sentence:
Securicor which itself employs many trade union members have given a pledge which is attached to every contract within this Department that it will not report on the activities of trade unions, or collective labour or on industrial relations of any kind. For some time now the note paper of Securicor has borne a condition that Securicor will not engage in strike breaking activities. The work of our Investigation Division is entirely confined to private investigation and the protection of customers' property. Securicor believes that it is acting in the interests of all workers because it is removing the burden of suspicion from the shoulders of the innocent to those of the guilty, thereby protecting livelihoods and promoting harmonious labour relations. There are instances where Securicor has stopped workers from losing their jobs by preventing the factory from closing down through heavy losses.
All industrial and commercial investigation is done directly by Securicor. Complete Security Services Limited, an Associate Company formed by Security Services Limited, our parent Company, deals exclusively with enquiries for the legal profession. Neither this Company nor Securicor has ever desired

or attempted to intervene in industrial discord or matters of this nature. Complete Security Services Limited issued a letter offering investigation services, in which certain phrases were open to mis-interpretation. Because of this, and because the services offered were outside their scope, the Company withdrew the letter after a dozen copies had been sent out.
I think that it is fair to all concerned that I should have read that statement in full, in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman read out the letter and—no doubt because he did not know of it—did not mention that it had subsequently been withdrawn. I therefore hope that he will think that I have done my best to answer the very important subject he has brought to the attention of the House.

Mr. Brockway: Before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down—he has not answered my case at all. Does he deny that this firm submitted to the workers a statement for them to sign withdrawing from the union? Does he deny that the managing director reimbursed the trade union contributions which these men had made, and then dismissed all the men who refused to sign that statement? That is what the hon. Gentleman has not answered. It is intolerable that a firm that has those practices should have contracts with the public corporations.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can only repeat that we in the Ministry of Labour have received several assurances on different occasions from the managing director of the company that the company does not dismiss employees because of trade union membership. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on how it would be possible for a Ministry to disregard categorical assurances of that nature. I really do not think that it would be right to consider doing such a thing, particularly when the assurances are given by people to whom the hon. Gentleman has himself referred as being people of very high standing and upright principles.

Mr. Brockway: Ask the unions.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE STREET WORKS

12.19 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and I wish to draw attention to the problem of unmade roads and streets. We have drawn attention to this matter for many years, and we are determined—and we hope that other hon. Members will join in the discussion, and the campaign—to continue to exercise pressure on any Government there may be to bring about a new policy in order to resolve problems that still affect thousands of citizens.
In my constituency I have an estate called the Apedale Estate, which has caused me many troubles over the years because of a private road that is frequently being damaged by surface mining operations. From time to time, over the years in which I have represented Newcastle-under-Lyme, citizens from the small number of dwelling houses thereon have come to see me about the terrible state of the private road on the Apedale estate. From time to time, the Staffordshire County Council has been compelled, simply in order to enable children to get to school at all during the winter, to stretch its powers and duties and intervene in order to get the road made up.
Until about two years ago, this private estate of about 50 or 60 acres was owned by a Sheffield firm, Thomas W. Ward, Ltd. Then it was bought by a firm called Huntflink Investments, Ltd. Huntflink Investments turned out to be a company with a nominal capital of £100, though only two £1 shares were issued. They were issued two years ago in the names of Peter Rachman and Audrey Rachman. This firm purchased from Thomas W. Ward Ltd. the Apedale Estate, which, as my hon. Friend and I know very well, consists mostly of derelict land. It is heavily undermined, and heavily over-mined, since there have been many surface mines in this district of north Staffordshire which have been caused a great deal of damage and disruption to the highways there and interfered with the life of the citizens.
Curiously enough, in the middle of last year, this company increased its capital from £100 to £125,000. Some of the shares were not issued but most

were, in equal proportions in the names of the late Peter Rachman and of Audrey Rachman. In November last year, a few days before the death of Mr. Rachman, the estate was mortgaged to the Eagle Star Insurance Company for the sum of £100,000. One can well imagine the amazement of my constituents and others in Staffordshire at £100,000 being advanced on the security of this estate. If anyone wonders at that amazement, let him come to see the place. I issue an open invitation to him to come to my constituency to see the dereliction of a great part of the area.
This may turn out to be a problem for the taxpayers. It is, I hope, extremely likely that at some time either the ratepayers or the taxpayers will wish to reclaim this land. They will wish to take it over, if only in order to ensure decent highways for the citizens. It may well then become a problem for the taxpayers and ratepayers, the citizens in general, that speculators and property racketeers have deliberately overvalued this land, bidding it up, as part of their speculative dealing and racketeering of which we have heard so much recently in connection with the doings of the late Mr. Rachman and others.
I mention these facts because the matter we are raising tonight is the result of past speculation. Because we have in the past permitted speculative building for quick profits, without insisting upon proper standards and the maintenance of services, particularly the making up of roads, this trouble is still with us especially in industrial areas like north Staffordshire. Fortunately, in recent years we have stopped this problem for the future. That is something of an advance which has been made.
We have to bear in mind that, in spite of the fact that a great deal of this problem of unmade roads and streets dates back a long way, sometimes to the speculative building boom of the 'thirties, sometimes very much further back, there are, as the Minister recently told me, in reply to me in the House, still 5,000 miles of unmade streets and roads in the country. Very many of those 5,000 miles are in the big industrial areas, sometimes, as in my constituency, bang in the centre of a great big industrial


complex. Roughly, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told me, about 1,000 miles of those streets and roads have been made up in the last five years. It seems to me that at the present rate of progress it will take at least another twenty-five years before this problem, this legacy of past misbehaviour and speculation, can be got rid of.
The whole business is a colossal hardship for the citizens involved. It is a terrible problem for many people in a constituency like mine. It is literally true that in many of these districts parents are scared of their children going out to school or to play in the streets and roads at certain times of the year, especially in conditions of bad weather, because of the potholing and the subsidence and the state of the mud paths outside their frontages. They suffer all kinds of special difficulties and hazards because of these things.
These citizens, of course, pay rates and taxes in the sameway as other citizens, but when, as a result of the action of local authorities, the time comes for their streets or roads to be made up, they find themselves in receipt of huge bills for the portions of the roads in their frontages which have been made up. Bills of £100 and £160 to ordinary citizens, sometimes with comparatively low wages, sometimes old-age pensioners, are very often produced to me in my constituency.
Of course, intelligent local authorities, like that of Newcastle-under-Lyme, have instituted systems of spreading over the years the burden of lending the money to the citizens, enabling them to pay gradually, but the fact is that it is inevitable under the existing law for the making up of private streets that a great deal of financial hardship is imposed upon ordinary working citizens.
Many people say that the system which we have inherited, through the various Acts of Parliament in the nineteenth century, for the making up of these unmade private streets and roads, so that they can be adopted as public highways, is fair enough because, after all, when the roads are made up there is an enhancement in the value of the property in the streets, and therefore it is fair that the frontagers should pay their portion to enable those streets to be adoped as public highways.
As I see it, there are two difficulties about that. The first point is that, O.K., there is an enhancement in the value of the property when the street is made up; but that is not realised in fact: the citizens are levied immediately for their apportionment, and they cannot realise financially the increased valuation of their properties, and therefore it is not immediately relevant to their living standards.
What is much more important is that in most cases, such as in my constituency, these so-called private streets and roads are, and have long been, public highways used by all sorts of people, sometimes at their peril and at the peril of the springs of their vehicles. They are used by milkman, bakers and so on. So long as they remain unmade, their use by this traffic causes further potholing and other damage and makes more expensive the repair and making up of the road when that time comes.
I think, therefore, that my constituents are right when they tell me that they are not responsible for a great deal of the expenditure that has to take place to make up the road. Year after year goes by and the road is not made up, and further damage is caused by bad weather and the traffic using the road. But these people, under existing legislation, will be levied whatever the cost happens to be when it comes to making up the road. The high interest rates impose increased burdens on frontagers in this respect.
Under the existing law local authorities are permitted to make a contribution from the rate fund towards the making up of unmade roads, but they cannot recoup any of that expenditure. There is no recognition of any national responsibility in that respect. I would also point out that the unmade streets and roads exist mostly in areas where the rates already bear particularly heavily on the population, and in those great industrial areas we already have many demands for increased local expenditure and expansion of local authority services.
Therefore, I believe that it is unfair to private citizens who no longer have any control over the use of these unmade streets and roads and also to the councils in the areas where the unmade roads mostly exist that they should have


to bear the whole financial burden. Those of us who represent the areas which contain the 5,000 miles of unmade streets and roads with their pot-holes and mud paths—these derelict or devastated highways—believe that the time has come for two things.
First, we want an accelerated rate of progress in making up these roads. We are thoroughly dissatisfied with the present rate of progress and want the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to enter into discussions with the local authority associations about immediately accelerating the making up of these roads. In many of the areas there is unemployment, and doing this work would result in improved amenities and more efficient services as well as the provision of a little more employment.
Secondly, we want the national exchequer to recognise now the necessity for a special financial contribution to these areas to relieve some of the financial hardship that exists.
We are not asking the Exchequer to take the whole burden on itself but to recognise that there is financial hardship on many citizens. It is unfair to say that local authorities which happen to be faced with this legacy of past neglect should have this responsibility placed on them alone, with the result that their ratepayers have to pay higher rates. The Exchequer should give some sort of assistance for these hard-pressed citizens so that greater progress can be made towards getting rid of this terrible heritage.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: As the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has said, there is colossal hardship in many of these cases. Private streets are made up under three different codes—a codeof 1892, a code of 1875 and, in some cases, private Acts. Under whatever code they are undertaken, the normal apportionment of charges is on the basis of frontage, and frontage does not only mean frontage; it also means flank walls at the side, and very often the owner finds himself saddled with the cost of £5 a foot of his side walls of his property because they are called "frontage".
Under the Highways Act, 1959, the local authority can exercise discretion

to relieve this hardship in three different ways. It is only the Minister who can question whether it has exercised that discretion correctly. It is true that the owner, when served with a notice for private street works charges, has the right of appeal to the magistrates, but normally that is on procedural aspects, not really going to the heart of the matter. It is the discretion which can be exercised by local authorities which does that.
Under Section 176 of the Act, a local authority can pass a resolution that the apportionment should not be made on the basis of frontage but on the greater or less degree of benefit or on what the owner may himself have spent on making up the road. But on very few occasions do local authorities pass that resolution. They base the charges on frontage and refuse to have regard to greater or less degree of benefit. If they were to do so, there would not be so many cases of such tragic hardship.
I have seven in the last few months over 200 letters from owners charged sums they cannot possibly afford within reason. Some have had to sell their properties in order to meet the charges.
The second way in which a local authority can exercise discretion is under Section 210 of the Act. It can, if it so resolves, relieve owners of all or part of the charges. This should apply in cases where a road is made up for some other purpose than to benefit the frontages. Frequently, a neighbouring estate—sometimes a local authority estate—is being developed and an unadopted road through a residential area is used by contractors' lorries and the surface ruined. For that reason the local authority takes it over and makes it up.
These are occasions when a local authority should exercise discretion and put at least a part of the cost on the ratepayers in general and not charge the owners who are frontagers along that road, for whose benefit the road has not, in fact, been made up. Those owners frequently find when the road is made up that it is used as a bypass and not to their benefit at all.
The third discretion which a local authority can exercise is to allow the charge to be spread over a period of 30 years. This is under Section 181 of the


Act. But again local authorities are reluctant to spread the charge over that period. They will sometimes spread it over three, or even four or five years, but they are not exercising their discretion to allow the owners to pay over 30 years which would relieve hardship and prevent the sales of property in some cases to meet the charges.
In none of these cases of failure to exercise a discretion can the owner appeal to the magistrates. His only appeal is to the Minister under Section 207. Any aggrieved person can appeal to the Minister within 21 days of the final demand for payment and the Minister can reach such decision as he thinks equitable. At this stage, the decision is wide open. The Minister can use pressure on the local authorities to exercise their discretion so as to relieve hardship to the owners, but I am afraid that my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have not, by their appeal decisions, directed local authorities to do so.
I ask my hon. Friend to ask his right hon. Friend to look again at the exercise of this appeal jurisdiction under Section 207 and where he sees real hardship, as there is in many cases, to say that the local authority should have exercised its discretion in relation to the greater or lesser degree of benefit, or, under Section 210, to relieve the owner in whole or in part of the charge, or its discretion under Section 181 to spread the burdenover a long period. I do not know what is the use of appealing under Section 207 if the Minister is not to do that. In the appeals to the Minister he has upheld the local authorities when there has been obvious hardship to the owners: I ask my hon. Friend to look at this matter again to see whether the appeal machinery could not be made more effective.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). This is not necessarily a debate of world shattering importance, but it is of vital importance to people living in 24,000 streets in Britain, and probably one million families are affected by it. In an age when we talk of reaching the moon, man should first learn to do

something about his own environment. Our first function should be to try to get a little affluence for the people of this earth. In our affluent society—and I am not making a political quip, because the affluent society is spreading throughout the world—surely a formula can be found to get rid of this disgusting anomaly.
The hon. Member for Crosby mentioned the Highways Act, 1959. The man in the street does not know about it. Out of 10,000 cases before 1960, only 1 per cent. appealed to the Minister. That was because of ignorance. It is the duty of local councillors and hon. Members and the Government to let householders in these circumstances know what possibilities are open to them. If only 1 per cent. appeal to the Minister, the reason is either that they cannot afford to go to a solicitor for the information, or that they do not know how to approach the problem. Making the procedure better known would help to reduce the burden.
When a noble Lord raised this issue in another place on 7th February, there was a useful and constructive debate and a Government statement indicating a line of policy was put forward in reply by the noble Lord who was speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He admitted that the time had come for something to be done.
I do not want to gild the lily, but in some areas it is not a laughing matter. The problem is greater in rural and industrial areas than elsewhere. Hence, we find that the very parts of Britain which suffered the dirt, grime, mining, steel working and textile working through the nineteenth century and helped to make Britain rich during that period today suffer from the speculative builder of that century. Are the present generation who live in those old houses to suffer until they die for the reason that if we were to do anything about it we would be helping the speculative builder of 50, 60 or 80 years ago?
In part of Kidsgrove, in my constituency, the local authority has for years tried to find an answer to the financial as well as the material problem of repairing the road. I could cite numerous personal cases. An old lady


who was born in the street remembers it in her grandmother's day. She remembers promises galore being made 70 years ago about making up the street. At one time, local authorities in industrial areas could not afford it. They have a little more money today and they are trying to apply the best principles of the Government's 1959 Act.
As was pointed out in another place, the situation is anomalous. Before 1805, the rule was that whenever a public right of way was established, there was a public responsibility to maintain the right of way to a reasonable standard. Later enactments changed that situation, however, and today, as the hon. Member for Crosby said, we are working under two codes, those of 1875 and 1892. For fifty years, and especially since the 1930s, many Governments, no matter what their political colour, have expressed good intentions about the paving of unadopted roads and streets, but the streets which they have talked about are still unpaved.
In July, 1960, the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) asked a constructive Question—I do not know whether it was inspired—about a survey of private streets. In a long Answer, the Government said that they were more or less satisfied with the existing situation and did not believe that a fundamental change in the law was needed. In their circular to local authorities shortly afterwards, they might have shown that there were possibilities for a local authority to use new discretionary powers. Much more publicity should have been given so that ratepayers would have known about those discretionary powers and would have been aware of their rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) made the point quite clearly that in some rural areas the existence of unadopted streets means that people cannot have milk, bread and coal delivered, because the van and lorry drivers refuse to take supplies to their homes. This is a burden. Some of the streets in my constituency are unfit for a young mother to use when wheeling a perambulator. Anybody who is venturesome and likes exploring

caves could do some potholing in these unadopted streets. There is a private road in Norton Green near Stoke-on-Trent on which the private builder will not allow anyone to have a telephone unless the cables are put underground.
If in the past ribbon development had been prevented many of these problems would not be with us today, but we are now concerned not with the past but with how to meet these problems constructively. Discretionary powers are given to local authorities to make up the streets, but how quickly are these powers used, and how are the authorities encouraged to use them? It behoves young people who buy houses to make certain of their legal position in relation to these roads. Despite the requirement of security from the builder in rural areas, under the 1959 Act, if a builder becomes bankrupt the onus and burden of making up the street can still fall on a young couple who have bought a house. This should be made clear in the conveyancing.
Section 40 of the 1936 Act enabled the best builders to make up a road to local authority specifications. The best developers—they were not all jerrybuilders—could spread that cost between themselves, the local authority and the householder. Unfortunately that provision was permissive. It should have been compulsory. Even Section 210 of the 1959 Act and other Sections mentioned by the hon. Member for Crosby can be evaded. Despite all this, the Minister thought on 27th March, 1961, that there were no grounds for making any change to the Act. The hon. Member for Crosby has made many well-informed points which I will not reiterate, but I should like to quote the nub of a policy statement made on behalf of the Government in another place on 7th February.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that there were
about 54,000 private streets in England and Wales of a total length…approaching 6,000 miles. This represented about one-tenth of the total mileage of urban roads of all kinds. Authorities with the highest mileages fell mainly into two categories: old industrial towns where there had been a lot of housing development in the 19th century, and modern residential areas which grew rapidly between the two world wars.


He went on to say:
Due to the initiative of a private Member in 1951, a short Bill was passed….It has since been absorbed into the consolidation Act on Highways in 1959, and is now better known as the Advance Payments Code.
Summing up this interesting debate, the noble Lord said:
At the beginning of my speech I referred to the survey carried put three years ago by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government",
and he then read the following passage from a circular which had been sent to local authorities:
The Minister's general conclusions arising out of the survey are that there is no ground for any fundamental change in the law relating to the making up of private streets…
He concluded by saying:
Therefore, my Lords, I would ask all local authorities to ponder the criticisms which have been made today, even though much of the criticism is not justified. The point is that strong criticism has been made, and there must be a reason for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 7th February, 1963, Vol. 246 cc. 768–9, and 775.]
We should go a little further than that. In Circular No. 11/61, distributed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 27th March, 1961, the Minister pointed out that under this new highway code local authorities had greater discretionary powers than hitherto, and they were now in a position to ease the burden on old people and widows who were unable to afford the frontage, or sideage, or whatever phrase one uses. Local authorities were entitled to make this a charge on the estate of a deceased person if necessary, or to extend the period of payment to beyond thirty years. Is the Minister satisfied that these powers are being used to the full?
Some local authorities, such as those in Biddulph, Kidsgrove, Cheadle, and other parts of Stoke-on-Trent, are trying to do a good job, but because of the growing burden of costs there is a great outcry about an unnecessary burden being imposed on the rates.
One is tempted to develop the case at length, but I do not think that at this late hour the Minister will deny that both sides of the House have strongly criticised the present situation. The Minister may give me an answer similar to that given in another place, that no

case has been made for a fundamental change of the law, but I hope he will agree that a case has been made for the Government to find a formula by which these old streets, and some new ones too, can be made up. It is no good asking who is to blame for what happened a century ago. Let us provide for the people living there now an environment which is decent, and of which they will be proud, and be inclined to keep beautiful and clean and tidy.
I am grateful to the Minister for being here at this late hour. I hope that some kind of answer will be given that will give hope to local authorities and encourage a new approach to this deadly problem that has been hanging over some of the older industrial areas and some of our rural communities for nearly a century.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. John Hollingworth: At this late hour I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I want to confirm the point of view expressed by the hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) from my own experience. I admit that I have no specialised knowledge of past legislation. What I do have is a considerable knowledge of the problems relating to this matter from my constituents. Many anomalies and cases of hardship are caused by the present situation. Coming down to brass tacks, I have substantial experience—as a small business man in an area where some unmade roads are situated—of the type of problems that arise.
In my constituency there are a number of relatively short unmade roads. Like the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), I am not particularly interested in past history. I was rather fascinated by the reference of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) to the Rachman position, although in relation to this debate that is reasonably irrelevant. I hope that that sort of thing is now in the past. We have learnt our lesson, and the same consideration should apply to this sort of problem.
I have a small business which involves the delivery of certain commodities of substantial weight to various customers


who live in an unmade road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). This may seem rather irrelevant and ludicrous at this time of night, but the amount of wear and tear on my vehicles in delivering to addresses in this unmade road is quite substantial. I am confident that it doubles the wear and tear factor.
When this matter was drawn to my attention quite properly by a non-constituent a long time ago I was interested to read about the Bill, placed before another House by a noble Lord, which I am sure is the debating reference point to which the hon. Member for Leek was referring. I hope that, irrespective of the many complications that must occur—and we appreciate the difficulties facing any Ministry under present circumstances—my hon. Friend will be able to throw some prospective light on what, to me, is another illustration of the way in which we have seemed to let something pass by. These properties were built, and these roads were produced, and for a number of long and complicated reasons people today are still having to suffer in a situation which is more applicable to the beginning of last century.
There are anomalies—my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to some—and there are practical problems for the small trader. I hope that my hon. Friend, in replying, will deal with them.

1.5 a.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I do not want at this late hour to elaborate too much on this important question. It is a very important question, increasingly so because over the years the amount of money required to make up private streets has increased and is increasing at a very considerable rate.
I know of a case where the cost immediately after the war would have been about £1,000, and it is now £6,000 or £7,000. It is urgent that these matters should be dealt with. A number of people are surprised when they find themselves likely to be liable for sums which they never dreamed of having to pay. In some cases their "frontage" is a misnomer; there is no way by which they can get to the road which they find they are responsible for making up.
In my opinion, a large degree of the trouble in these cases is that the legislation which has been passed has developed in three different ways in which the liabilities of the frontagers and the responsibility for heavy use which is sometimes made of these streets can be correlated so as to get a fair distribution of responsibility.
My feeling, and I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about it, is that an extension of the third code, that is, the code relating to the advance payment which has been applied to date only when dealing with new housing, would provide a mortgage method, a charge method by which money could be raised without immediate repayment. If that could be applied to the other types of houses which normally come under the 1890 and the 1875 code we could do away with a great deal of hardship. These are points on which everyone who takes an interest in this subject would like to hear the comment of the Parliamentary Secretary.

1.8 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): The issue between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme(Mr. Swingler), who introduced this subject, comes down to whether or not the burden should be borne nationally or locally.
The hon. Member said that where dangerous conditions exist his local authority, Staffordshire County Council, had stretched the lawa little to make the roads reasonably safe. I can assure him that the county council has not done any stretching of the law. It has powers to remedy dangerous conditions. It has power to do that by means of the general rate fund and it also has power to ask for contributions. It is entirely in the council's discretion. I understood from what the hon. Member said that the council had not attempted to place a charge on the frontagers in these cases. I should have thought that the House would accept that basically at least the administrative problem of getting the road made up and of deciding the priorities and malting the necessary arrangements, must be a local problem.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asks for expedition in these matters, but we have to face the fact that at present a certain amount of overlapping, and a certain amount of complexity, arise from the fact that there are these two parallel codes, and the advance payment code which as it were straddles both of them. Under both the codes there is no necessity for the local authority to fear any great financial burden. The idea that progress is being held up for fear of a large burden on the rate seems to me to be misconceived. I grant that in certain cases, where there are poor districts, where the road may have been unmade since before the First World War, and the cost of making up the road has risen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said, out of all proportion to the original cost, the authority may well hold back rather than demand a substantial sum from frontagers who, almost by definition in that type of area, are not likely to be very wealthy. But the authority has the power to step in and to pay a proportion of the total cost out of the rates.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot that there may be hardship, but there are powers by which the whole or any proportion of the cost can be met at the discretion of the local authority.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme made the point that all these people were paying their rates and taxes—in respect of the proportion which goes to local roads—for other people's roads; but those roads were made up originally at the cost of those frontagers, and it was only when they had been made up to the standard required by the local authority that the public took over the expense of maintenance.
I hope that the House will face the fact that we are being asked to say that, because these other roads have been left for many years, sometimes for decades, the State should step in, even though other people have made up the roads for which they are responsible and yet others will do so as every new housing estate is developed. We must bear in mind that the 1951 Advance Payment Code, to which the hon. Member referred

as curing this problem for the future, throws the cost on the householder. It can do this in one of two ways—on the ordinary basis of one of the two codes, in which case there will be an apportionment by the local authority if it is undertaking to make up the road with the agreement of the builder, or, if the builder puts down a deposit he will recover from the purchase price of the house—indeed it may be that he will add more to some houses and less to others in relation to the apparent advantage of the position of the house. However that may be, the money will come ultimately from the people who own and occupy the houses.
One has to question very carefully whether it would be just to take over the obligations of the backlog of people who have not carried out their obligations in the past, while leaving the same obligation with people who are developing houses currently and making no redress for those who have completed the work because they happen to have built more recently or to have had a more energetic local authority. There is a dilemma here. I suggest that it is not one which it would be fair to tackle on the lines that the country as a whole should make good these areas, bearing in mind that they are local problems. They have by definition been with the local authority for many years. The power has been there. If the problem has now become so much vaster, it is, at least in part, due to the dilatoriness of the local authorities in the past. Certainly since the beginning of the last century, and I think a good deal before that, local authorities—the municipalities at any rate—have been responsible for their local urban roads. To make out a case for a national subvention requires a rather stronger argument than we have heard today.
I remind the House that in the poorer areas, which by definition will be in receipt of rate deficiency grant, these contributions that local authorities make towards the making up of private roads rank for rate deficiency grant. Therefore, in the poorer areas there is a taxpayer's contribution. In some of the Welsh counties, for example, there are rate deficiency grants going up to over 70 per cent. of the local authority's expenditure. I do not know any of the figures offhand for the neighbour-


hoods from which the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) come. In such areas a very substantial proportion is paid, although indirectly, by the taxpayer.
It is argued that, because these roads have not been made up, they have remained public highways and damage has been done to them by traffic which is not strictly serving the estates or houses concerned. This no doubt happens on occasions, but it was curious that nearly all the examples quoted—the milkman, the baker, and so on—were precisely those people who would be serving the areas concerned. I should have thought that the occasions on which any large amount of through traffic develops without the local authority making acontribution would be rare. That sort of factor would be taken into account by my right hon. Friend in any appeal decision where it is possible for him to do so.
Perhaps it would be wise for me to outline my right hon. Friend's position. The question of apportionment—that is, the division of the total cost amongst the various frontagers—is a matter in the first place for local authorities, with an appeal to the magistrates. If there can be an appeal to the magistrates on that, it rules out my right hon. Friend's jurisdiction. When the matter comes to him, he looks at each individual appeal to see whether there should be a reduction to make it more equitable but he is not able, unless all the frontagers on a road appeal, to reduce the apportionment or reduce the total contribution and make the local authority either pay some contribution or pay a bigger proportion. That is because each appeal must be looked at individually and, unless all frontagers appeal, the apportionment remains basically fixed.
My right hon. Friend is able to reduce the sum in individual cases where the benefit has clearly been over-estimated, and he is able to ensure that the local authorities use their discretionary power to spread the burden over a number of years. My hon.Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) rightly said that the maximum laid down in the Act is thirty years but that local authorities very seldom use their dis-

cretionary powers to spread it over that period or any period near it. It must be borne in mind that often these sums are such that it would not make very much sense administratively to use that sort of period. In the last week or two more than one case has come my way where, after reduction by my right hon. Friend, the sum owing is about £50 or £60. To spread, say, £60 over 30 years, making a payment of £2 per year, is hardly worth keeping the ledger open for that length of time. It is reasonable in such circumstances to use six, seven or nine years as a period in which to make annual payments of from £6 to £10. I do not think it unreasonable to cut the period in such cases or reasonable to suggest that it should be extended to 30 years.

Mr. Graham Page: I can produce cases of property worth £2,000 or £3,000 where the charge has been £500 or £600. I recollect that in one case the charge was £600 against a widow who could not possibly find that amount, as a result of which she had to sell the property—simply because the sum was not spread over 30 years. I mention this to show that there are many cases involving not tens but hundreds of pounds.

Mr. Corfield: As far as I know—at any rate, since I have been at the Ministry—the type of case that has come to my right hon. Friend where it has seemed right to insist on a spread has been in the cost range I have mentioned. I was suggesting that in certain circumstances, when the total sum is in the neighbourhood of £60 to £70, it was more sensible to cut the period to six or seven years.

Sir E. Errington: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point I raised; that under the Advance Payments Code the money for the cost of the road-making can be reserved? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that these amounts are sometimes large. They are getting heavier all the time and if there were a system by which the money could be charged against the houses, as under the Advance Payments Code, it would be of immense help. Myhon. Friend has been sympathetic to local authorities, but this is more a human than a local authority problem in many cases.

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that he spoke last and that I have been trying to reply to the points in the order they were raised. I did not intend to neglect that matter. As I understand the Advance Payments Code, an estimate is made, usually about the time when planning permission is given, of the cost likely to be incurred in making up the roads. It can then be apportioned and in some cases a deposit is demanded from the individual householder; that is, if it is an estate that has been developed in individual plots to individual requirements. In other cases, a deposit is demanded from the builder. Where the builder is of known repute in the area, the local authority will often be prepared to rely on an agreement.
That having been done, particularly where the deposit is paid or where houses are sold subject to an agreement by the builder and, therefore, the amount of money is added to the cost of the houses, the bulk of the money is secured. But in the case of deposits—and I will write to my hon. Friend if I am wrong—I am fairly certain that a claim for the balance, if the estimate proved to be wrong, could still be made. I do not think that there is any truth in the belief that if the estimate is made, say, for £400 for a particular householder, that means that he is entirely relieved of any further liability if the costs work out at more.
It must also be remembered that the code has the great advantage that once a deposit has been paid a majority of the frontagers may demand that the local authority makes up their street at once. That means that we avoid the lapse of time to which my hon. Friend referred and during which the increasing costs get more and more out of proportion to the original cost of the value of the property, in the case of a very old property—

Mr. Harold Davies: Paragraph 6 of the Minister's Circular 11/61, dated 27th March, 1961, states that under Sections 181 and 264 of the Highways Act, 1959, the street works authority may recover the sum due by annual instalments, together with interest, over a period of up to 30 years, and says also that the debt can remain a charge on the property until it is recovered. There is nothing

to stop a local authority waiting until the death of, say, an old widow, and then coming on to her heirs for the money. It would help if it were made more publicly known to those who might suffer, but the Minister seemed to indicate that 30 years was too long altogether, whereas, in the first case, the 1959 Act recognised the need for it.

Mr. Corfield: No, I was not suggesting that the period was too long, but that there were cases in which it would be stupid to use that length of period. But perhaps I may reserve my answer until later this morning, when I can take a little legal advice, because that is the Circular, not the Act, and I am by no means certain that the Circular would entitle one to have a period during which no instalments were paid. I think what the hon. Gentleman has in mind is that if there were, for the sake of argument £300 outstanding and a 30-year period were allowed, one would pay £10 per annum, but that one could have, per haps, 20 years during which no payments were made, and then payment made for 10 years at £30 per annum—

Mr. Harold Davies: Yes.

Mr. Corfield: I should not like to give a spot answer now whether that is possible under the Act. I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, who knows a lot about this subject, saying that it is not, and I think that he is almost certainly correct.
I cannot give the hon. Member for Leek the percentage of cases going to appeal, because we do not keep a record of the total number of cases, but over the last few years we have had between 350 and 400 appeals, and in rather more than 1 in 4 cases some reduction—generally a reasonably substantial one—has been made. I therefore think that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is a little unfair in saying that he can see no point in the appeal procedure, because there are many cases in which relief is given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alders hot mentioned advance payments. I do not think there is any means by which we could adopt the advance payments code on an existing estate. Even if I am wrong in the interpretation I gave him just now, I do not think that under the


present Act there is any means by which we could estimate the liability, or take a deposit, after the houses had been put up. However, I will look into that point. What normally happens is that the arrangement is made under the 1951 procedure, before the builder starts, and it would be difficult to do it on an existing estate because that would mean taking a purely arbitrary year on which to make the valuation. It might not raise great difficulties, but I should want to look at the question before I committed myself on those lines.
I am by no means certain that, even under the advance payments code, if it did so happen that a road was still not made up after thirty years and, when it came to be made up, the cost had risen, there would be no liability on the frontagers. But, of course, this does not normally happen because there is power for the frontagers to demand that it shall be made up, provided that a majority do so.
Basically, the problem is that if we made a mandatory national contribution we should in some cases be paying the costs which in other cases people have already paid themselves, and which people are daily paying, in respect of the roads on which their properties front. I appreciate that the cost of making up a road in front of an older property will nowadays be a much higher proportion of the value of the property than it would be in the case of a modern property, but the modern property, too, has to have the road at its frontage made up and the cost of so doing is high in monetary terms though lower as a proportion of the cost of the building.

Mr. Harold Davies: I know that it is late, and I hope that the Minister will not get irritated by my questions. Could not some formula be found for this purpose? The Ministry sends out a shilling booklet, through the Stationery Office advising engineers about the repairing of private streets. We do not want streets made up so that they will carry a 50-ton lorry. But, when I have approached local authorities and asked for something to be done—nothing special, but just putting the steam-roller over the road and really nothing more than that, for which, in any case, people would be only too grateful—the reply has been, "Yes, but if we

do that, we shall then be regarded as liable for the road". Could not we have a little conjuring trick on the part of a constructive and kindly Minister, such as the hon. Gentleman who is now addressing us, to make it clear to local authorities that they can do this sort of work without there being complete liability—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember that we are not in Committee and that questions, although legitimate, must be short.

Mr. Corfield: I do not think that I have the magic wand which the hon. Gentleman wishes me to wave. There is the difficulty that, once the works are done, the street becomes the liability of the highway authority, and, naturally, the authority wants to ensure that the initial condition of the streets before it takes them over is such that they will not immediately require major maintenance in order to keep them to the necessary standard if they are to have any durability at all.
I appreciate the difficulties, and I entirely see the point that many householders would be only too pleased to have, so to speak, a temporary road; but we have to look at the matter from the point of view of the public particularly having regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that we ought to contribute from the national Exchequer. That only heightens the desirability of ensuring that the job is well done.
At this time of night, it is only those who want to press a point who stay up, apart from the Minister. I am outnumbered. I can only say that I believe that the dilemma is much bigger than most hon. Members will admit. I have a good deal of sympathy with the people concerned, but I have absolutely no doubt that the condition of these roads and the liability in connection therewith are reflected in the valuation of the properties involved. It is suggested that we put public money straight into the hands of the ordinary private property owner. There may or may not be a case for that, but it would be a major departure, and, I suggest, an even greater departure for hon. Members opposite than for my hon. Friends.

Orders of the Day — PRIMARY SCHOOL, OSBALDWICK

1.35 a.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I wish to raise the problem of the primary schoolchildren at Osbaldwick. Osbaldwick is a rapidly developing dormitory area on the outskirts of York. In 1939 the population was 296. By 1951 it had grown to 882. In 1955, when the population was 1,443, the local education authorities decided that the existing school premises for primary schoolchildren were quite inadequate and completely out of date and decided to builda new primary school. The Minister, in December, 1956, agreed that a new primary school was necessary but did not allow them to start building until 1958, when he allowed them to build two classrooms on the selected new site. That is the picture of what has happened.
Now the population of Osbaldwick is 3,192 and that is just about double what it was when the Minister decided that a new seven-classroom school should be built. As the newcomers to Osbaldwick are mostly young couples with children the school population is rising faster than the population. Today, there are 286 primary schoolchildren; next year there will be 305; by 1967 the number will be 350.
How are these children being educated? There are 66 who are being taught in the old, out of date village school; 35 are being taught in a prefabricated classroom; and 75 in the two classrooms on the new site which the Minister agreed to in 1958. That is 176. That leaves 110 children who cannot be accommodated in school premises in the North Riding. Of those, 77 are sent over the county boundary into the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Longbottom) where they are being taught at Darwent school in a very similar area of rapid development, and it is already overcrowded.
The 33 leftovers, by the generosity of the vicar and the church council, are being taught in the church hall when it is not being used for any other purpose. This means that the teaching of the children of primary school age in Osbaldwick is being carried on on five different sites, four of them under the

same headmaster. I shall make many criticisms today of the conditions in which these children are being taught, but I want to make it absolutely clear at the outset that I have nothing but the highest praise for the headmaster and his assistant teachers for the way they are carrying out what is very nearly an impossible task.
Looking at the conditions in which these children are being taught, I want to concentrate chiefly on the two buildings—the old village school and the church hall. The old village school is a typical nineteenth century building, one large hall partitioned off into two classrooms, and 66 children are being crammed into those two classrooms. There is one wash bowl for each class room of 33 children, but no hot running water at all. The sanitary arrangements are completely unsatisfactory. Each classroom is heated by a very old-fashioned stove and the classrooms are extremely cold. That was the standard accommodation 60 years ago, but it is completely unsatisfactory in 1963.
The church hall is very much worse and quite unsuitable for modern education. But we must remember that it is being used only because otherwise the 33 children had nowhere isle to go and the church stepped into the breach. When I visited it on 8th June I found there was only one water closet for the 33 children, the teacher and the kitchen staff who cook the meals. There was one other closet, but it was completely dilapidated. It had a broken basin, and had not been used for many years. There are no washing faciities for the children. The only tap is in the kitchen used by the kitchen staff for cooking the meals.
This is a very old, dark building with no heating except an old-fashioned stove which throws out carbon monoxide fumes but little heat. Earlier this year a 10-year-old child was carried out unconscious, overcome by carbon monoxide fumes. It is so cold that even early this summer the parents were ordered to ensure that every child had on two jerseys before they came to school in order to keep out the cold. What will happen in the winter I leave the Minister to imagine. There is insufficient room for storing clothes, and so the children are told not to take any


wellingtons because they have nowhere to put them.
As the church hall is required for other purposes such as a baby clinic and public library four afternoons a week, the children have to leave the school premises on those occasions. They either go out for a nature walk or are sent home. There is no playground for the school. It is sited at a very busy and dangerous comer, and so parents are warned not to send the children too early for their own safety.
I cannot understand how the Ministry inspectors could not have commented adversely on the premises. In another capacity I am Vice-President of the Independent Schools Association, and as such I have found the Ministry inspectors refusing to register schools because they do not have first-rate or palatial conditions. But in this village these children are being taught in sub-standard premises quite contrary to every public health or education standard.
These being the conditions in which children of primary school age have been educated in Osbaldwick, what is being done by the Minister or the local education authority to remedy what is now a grevious problem but in the next few years will be greatly aggravated? The local education authority says that it has pressed the Minister year after year to be allowed to build the school that he told it it could build in 1958. That was five years ago. I gather that the Minister's answer will be that it did not press quite hard enough.
But I do not want to apportion any blame tonight. I want to have this scandal put right and the new school built. When the Minister turned down the proposal for the school to be built in this year's programme, the local education authority decided to build a further instalment of two classrooms in its minor works programme.
I do not blame it for that. I merely comment that it is a very odd way of conducting a school building programme. One puts in a scheme which is turned down and then one jobs it in under a minor works programme.
When I asked my right hon. Friend on 11th July to allow the local education authority to complete the remainder of the school in the 1964–65 programme so that at least there might be continuity of

building in this later period, he refused, saying that it was not sufficiently urgent. So, as far as I can see, we now have the ridiculous position that this new school will be built in three stages, with a three or four year gap between each stage. That, I submit, is good sense neither educationally nor economically. The cost of the building will be very much increased and while the Minister is delaying the number of primary school children will increase.
By 1967, the agreement with York Corporation to have up to 80 children educated at the Derwent School will have ended. What will happen them if the Minister's decision means that by that time no new school premises will be built other than the two classrooms in the minor works programme? It will mean that there will be accommodation for 160 of the 350 children in the four class rooms but that the remaining 190 children will have to be accommodated in the present unsuitable premises. In fact the problem in 1967 will be aggravated a great deal compared with what it is today.
If the Minister will not change his mind and insists on adhering to his refusal to include completion of the school in the 1964–65 programme, he should at least allow the local education authority to use the device it is using this year and put the remainder of the school in the minor works programme for the following year.
I will recapitulate the story. Seven years ago the Minister decided that a new school had to be built. Four years ago he allowed two classrooms to be built. I received the following letter from the secretary to the local education committee, which included this statement:
A forward estimate of primary school numbersat Osbaldwick is being made each school term; that is to say, to estimate what the numbers will be a year ahead, and as soon as it can be demonstrated to the Minister that the existing accommodation must be supplemented, the Minister will be asked to allow for the rest of the new school to be built forthwith, and I have no doubt that the Minister will then agree.
That letter was dated 9th September, 1959. Since then, these regular forward estimates have been given to the Minister. At what stage did he disabuse the local education authority of its confident belief that he would agree


to the completion of the programme it put forward in 1959? I cannot believe that this story of muddle and delay is typical either of the Minister or of the North Riding Education Committee, but I do believe that the parents going to live on the outskirts of York, out of York, have a right to expect that in this new, 20th Century dormitory area, children should be educated under modern 20th Century conditions. This state of affairs reflects no credit on our education authorities, and I ask the Minister to put it right.

1.50 a.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) for raising this matter this evening. He and I have discussed it and I will certainly do my best to answer the points which he has raised. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, I was able to be of assistance on one school building matter in my right hon. Friend's constituency. I am sorry that, for reasons which I shall explain, I cannot be as forthcoming on this occasion. No one who follows these matters could be in any doubt as to the enormous amount of interest and concern which my right hon. Friend shows in these school building matters in his constituency.
The history of this matter is as follows. In 1956, Lord Eccles, under Section 13 (4) of the Education Act, 1944, approved in principle the establishment of a new county school to replace the old Church of England controlled school in Osbaldwick, but although my predecessor gave approval, the school itself was never put into the building programme as a major project. Instead, permission was given for a first instalment, costing up to £10,000 to be carried out as a minor work, and this instalment is at present used as an annexe to the old school.
I do not know—I do not have the full details before me of what happened to the school—whether proposals were put again between that date and 1964–65. but the North Riding education authority entered this project as number six in its order of priorities for primary school proposals in 1964–65. Altogether,

it submitted six primary school proposals of which three, being proposals for basic needs, were approved—the Marske Roman Catholic Primary School, the Huntington County Primary School and the Catterick Camp Infants School.
North Riding education authority put in its case for this school on two grounds. The first was the ground of basic need. This arises, as my right hon. Friend has made plain, from the fact that York cannot make the Derwent accommodation available beyond 1965. The extent of the basic need could be met by a second minor project which the authority now proposes to undertake. Within the allocation made to the authority, it is perfectly entitled, of course, to spend part of that allocation on this second stage to the basic need element in this school project, if it so desires.
I venture to say to my right hon. Friend that it is not exceptional when the whole of a major project cannot be approved in the building programme for the basic need aspect of that project to be carried out by means of minor work. I recognise that it is not ideal from the authority's point of view, because the school building has to be carried out in stages, but there is nothing exceptional about what the authority is proposing to do in this case.
The second ground on which the authority put forward this proposal was that it wished to replace an old and unsatisfactory school. Of course, the completion of the school must be classed as the replacement of existing accommodation. Here I can only repeat what I have had to say in the House on a number of occasions this year—that during the period of the five-year building programme between 1960 and 1965 we have done a large number of replacement and improvements. Even leaving out reorganisation, replacements and improvements have accounted for something comfortably over £100 million of the total programmes, but we have not been able to include primary school replacements. We felt that it was necessary to give first priority to secondary school replacement in accordance with the priorities laid down in the 1958 White Paper.
I should like to add one further point at this stage and that is to say something about the size of the North Riding programmes generally. I have looked carefully at the figures and it is fair to say that over the five years between 1960 and 1965, the North Riding has had a series of programmes which, added together, are more than proportionate to its proportion of the school population of England and Wales. Furthermore, if one considers the 1964–65 programme by itself, certainly as compared with many authorities, the North Riding did not come off too badly.
For the programme for 1964–65, the North Riding asked for a sum totalling £845,000. A total of £620,000 was approved straight away and an additional project costing £59,000 has been submitted and approved since then. Thus, having initially asked for £845,000, the North Riding authority has been granted a total of £680,000 for 1964–65.
I have mentioned the three primary schools which were included in the programme. Also included in it are three secondary schools: the Marske county modern school, Cleveland grammar school and the Eston, South Bank Victoria Street county modern. When one considers programmes in the country as a whole, the North Riding can be said to have had a fair share of the resources which were going.
Whatever may be said locally about the programme for next year, I have received no official representations from the North Riding authority either about the exclusion of the project in question or about the size of its programme generally. I have received a number of deputations on the subject of building programmes, but I have received no specific request for a deputation or any specific representations from the North Riding authority.
When I was able to announce a further increase of £5 million in the building programmes, I considered carefully the representations which my right hon. Friend had made to me. More than £4 million of this money will go towards replacements and improvements. In addition, I have included in the programme out of the reserve about

£1½ million worth of additional projects, mainly for basic needs, since the initial programmes were announced in February this year. Indeed, the £59,000 project which I have mentioned falls into that category.
I was, however, bound on consideration to feel that the basic needs aspect of the Osbaldwick project could be done out of the minor works allocation and it was not possible to include the whole sum in the building programme because this was a primary replacement project and I felt bound, in the last year of the five years covered by the 1958 White Paper, to give priority to secondary replacements. As I have said, during these five years we have donea considerable level of secondary replacements and improvements. It is in the next stage of school building that we must look at the prospect of making a start on primary replacements.
There remains the question of whether, in the interim before the whole new school can be completed and the use of the old premises discontinued, anything can be done to improve conditions there. I understand that certain small improvements are to be carried out. What is, perhaps, more important is that it will be possible to discontinue the use of the church hall, at least for the present, when the two additional classrooms are available. I recognise the problems that arise from the use of the church hall, to which my right hon. Friend gave considerable emphasis, and I understand that when the two additional classrooms are available, the use of the church hall can be discontinued.
It is for these reasons that after much thought I felt bound not to include this project for 1964–65. As I have said, it did not have at all a high position on the local authority's list, and looking over the whole period from I960 to 1965, the whole of the five years covered by the White Paper, I feel that the figures I have given reveal the North Riding as having had a fair share of the resources available and I do not think that there can be a serious grievance about the sum of money that has been allocated for major building for the year 1964–65.

Orders of the Day — NUCLEAR POWER STATION, WYLFA

2.1 a.m.

Commander J. S. Kerans: I beg leave to raise the subject of the Wylfa nuclear power project. This may seem to be somewhat remote from my constituency but it is of great concern indeed to my constituents. As the House will know, this matter was debated in another place on 10th July. An announcement was made by the Central Electricity Generating Board on the day preceding that debate that United Power, of which consortium a firm in my constituency is a part, had lost the contract to English Electric.
This came as a great blow to me. I have been trying for many months to do what I possibly can in my capacity as a Member of Parliament to help the firm of Richardsons, Westgarth to keep its £9 million proportion of this contract as part of a consortium of five companies. I have written to Sir Christopher Hinton, chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, and I have also had correspondence with the noble Lord Hailsham in his capacity as Minister responsible for the North-East. I have tried desperately hard to get the Government to do what they can to help improve the employment situation in my constituency.
The firm of Richardsons, Westgarth is of long-standing in The Hartlepools. It has had a very difficult time in the last few months and even earlier. It spent £2¾ million on refurnishing the works to get the contract for a nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd. The firm hoped to secure part of the Kingsnorth contract butthat was lost, and finally the bitter blow came when it lost the contract for the nuclear project in Anglesey. I have done all I could to help. Unemployment in the constituency now stands at 9·2 per cent. There will be school-leavers coming on to the labour market this month, and over a year ago a shipyard and engineering works were lost to the constituency. Richardsons, Westgarth, having lost this contract, is faced with laying off a design staff of 100 who have been kept on for many months in the hope that the contract or part of it would come to the firm.
I find it hard to understand why the Government have allowed this to happen, because Section 8 (1) of the Electricity Act, 1957 provides that the Minister may give to the Electricity Council and any area board
such directions of a general character as to the performance by that Council or Board of their functions as appear to the Minister to be requisite in the national interest.
I would have thought that in an area of high and persistent unemployment he could have used his powers. But I gather from an Answer to a Question a few days ago that the Minister of Power has never used those powers since the Act came into force.
I faced a demonstration by the workers of this firm when they walked through the town carrying placards, and I met a large delegation of shop stewards and convenors. I sympathise with them, because for the last six months I have been trying to do what I could to help to resolve their doubts about the future. Many of them are skilled men, and if they leave the area they will not necessarily return. My noble Mend is doing what he can to attract industry to the North-East, and it is a tragedy that this state of affairs has arisen.
This firm received a letter of intent from the C.E.G.B. dated 29th May, 1962. I have read the letter, and although I am not a commercial magnate it appears to me to be full of legal let-outs. I understand that this is the first occasion on which a letter of intent, which is virtually the Government's or a nationalised industry's "go ahead" has been rescinded, and I find this attitude hard to understand. There have been about 150 meetings between the design teams of this firm and the C.E.G.B. and at the last minute, on the day before the debate in another place, the whole scheme crashed in flames.
About fifteen months of intensive work—it having been known in advance that the letter of intent was to be received—was carried out by a large and competent design and engineering team. About 150 Minuted technical meetings were held with the C.E.G.B. team, and the design was developed at all stages with their agreement. U.P.C.—and this firm is part of the consortium—tendered formally in December, and was asked, in common with


another tenderer to redesign with a view to reducing the price per kilowatt. It submitted a new price on 11th April, 1963, which price was the absolute minimum for which this station could be supplied. No negotiations were entered into over price, and the tender was turned down by the C.E.G.B. on 6th June for no adequate reason. I find this hard to explain.
I referred earlier to people being laid off and to skilled men leaving the area and not returning. On 9th July the C.E.G.B. said that English Electric hoped to put out about £20 million worth of sub-contract work in the North-East. Is this a worth-while assurance? Is there any guarantee that this firm will be enabled to do the sub-contract work? There is bound to be a delay of several months before the firm receives any orders, and there is nothing in the pipeline to provide work after this year. Is the offer by the C.E.G.B. sincere? Will there be a written agreement guaranteeing this firm certain contracts?
Further, when is the report by the noble Lord on the North-East coming to fruition? There are these doubts about what is to happen in the North-East, and whether these firms will get these orders. Is their future in jeopardy? What is the power of the Central Electricity Generating Board? It seems to me, as a layman, that Sir Christopher Hinton is all-powerful, and can dictate to the various firms in this consortia as to where the contracts will go.
Surely nationalised industries must give some thought to the working-class men whose livelihoods dependon these jobs. There are doubts about the future in my constituency. There are doubts whether the Government intend to bring industry to the area and help all these areas of high unemployment. I only hope that I can get some assurance to night that these hopes will not be dashed to the ground, because these people are human; they want to stay in the area if they can. They are keen on their jobs. They do not want to be pushed around. I ask my hon. Friend for some assurance, on behalf of the Government, that the whole matter will be looked into.

2.11 a.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: We must all sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member for the Hartlepools (Cdr. Kerans) in the constituency difficulties which face him as a result of the decision to award the nuclear power contract for the Wylfa station to a rival group, but he should look at what has happened in the context of the future of nuclear power in this country in general, because it raises the isssue of how long it will be before nuclear power is competitive with conventional power, and the extent to which this will be determined by the maintenance of harmonious relationships between the consortia on the one hand and the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board on the other.
At the moment, as we have seen from the debate in another place last week, there is a serious difference of opinion between at least one of the consortia and the Board, and we also know that equally serious differences have arisen between the Board and the Authority. It is true to say that the hard words used in the debate in another place are only a sympton of a much wider problem.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in its recent report on the electricity supply industry, drew attention to the differences between the Board and the Authority. It talked about the resentment which the Board felt about its treatment by the Authority. This does not arise entirely from the pure differences of function between the two bodies. I suspect that it may also be due partly to incompatibility of temperament between the individuals who are responsible for co-ordinating the activities in each. This is not the main problem that we are discussing. We are considering a much more limited matter. Unfortunately, we shall not have a chance of referring to this matter for at least another four months, and it should therefore be made quite clear that much wider issues are involved than merely the awarding of the Wylfa contract.
I read the speech of Lord Coleraine with great interest. I thought that it was a brilliant speech, and that he raised some questions of vital importance which should have been answered by the Government at the time, but which were not answered. Sir Christopher Hinton's story


might have been a different one, but Sir Christopher Hinton cannot answer for himself. It is therefore the Government's duty to reply to the allegations which were made.
I hope the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will not tell us that all these matters fall to be reported on by the mysterious Powell Committee, on which we do not seem to be able to get any information at all. We do not know when it was appointed. We do not know who its members are, what its terms of reference may be, or when it is expected to report. When the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) put a Question to the Prime Minister about it the other day he was told that none of this information could be divulged.
While we are waiting for this Report, how are the disagreements which have been revealedto be resolved? We cannot leave the situation as it stands. The importance of continuing work for the consortia, and not only for U.P.C., does not need to be emphasised. It is quite obvious that the design and construction teams which have been built up by these firms must need a minimum amount of work to keep them going.
I ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply: is it the policy of the Government to encourage further amalgamations between firms in the consortia? That is a very important question. One has to remember that there are large sums of public money involved in the nuclear power programme. The cost of the station at Wylfa is estimated to be £100 million. If we consider it in another way—and I think it should be considered in this way—the capital cost per kilowatt of the Wylfa station is £97 as compared about £34 for a conventional station.
We are spending considerable sums of public money and these stations are much more expensive to erect than conventional stations going up at the same time. I think it was quite inevitable that sums of this order should be expended if the consortia were to be kept alive until the time when nuclear power should become competitive with conventional power. The Ministry spokesman who gave evidence to the Select Committee said that the programme of 5,000 kilowatts by 1968 was the smallest that was con-

sistent with keeping together the skilled manpower of the consortia for the time when nuclear power on a large scale would become economic. Another witness who gave evidence pointed out that the Generating Board had already had to take special action to keep one firm in business.
I do not know whether any special action is to be required to keep the U.P.C. in existence bearing in mindits failure to get the Wylfa contract, but the possibility of this happening after the previous case referred to in the evidence given to the Select Committee leads one to the question whether the current nuclear power programme is large enough to achieve the limited objectives which have been outlined. I do not think it good enough for the Government to wash their hands of responsibility for this crisis which has arisen and to say that the consortia in entering this field took a commercial risk which did not come off. It was led into taking that risk by undertakings given to it by the Government.
Sir Christopher Hinton said in a paper published, I think, in 1961:
The 1955 nuclear power programme set as a target the construction of plants having a capacity of 1,800 MW by 1965, and four large firms were persuaded (not without reluctance on the part of some of them) to train staffs to enable them to design and build the necessary plants.
Two years later the nuclear programme was very greatly extended and the consortia trained additional staff as a result of that change in the programme.
Sir Christopher Hinton said on the next page of the booklet that
one cannot expect to create a large industry by establishing a programme, to destroy that industry by slashing the programme and then to re-create it at one's convenience seven or eight years later".
He may have had some foreknowledge of what was likely to happen as a result of this case.
Is it possible that an extension of the current programme for Magnox reactor could be justified on purely commercial reasoning and not merely on the necessity to keep the design teams in business? Lord Coleraine and Lord Aldington, who one must admit are interested parties in the discussion, certainly thought that there could besuch a commercial justification. Their argument deserves more than cursory examination. They have


claimed that the life of 20 years, assumed for a nuclear station in the current programme, should be 25 years or even 30 years, and Lord Aldington said that the Wylfa station had been designed with this requirement in mind on the express instructions of the Central Electricity Generating Board.
Since the depreciation charges are a very substantial part of the cost of electricity generated in a nuclear station, this is a vitally important point. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries tells us that two-thirds of the cost of nuclear power arises from capital charges, compared with only one-fifth for a conventional station, and therefore if one depreciates the station over 30 years it could make a drastic reduction in the cost of electricity.
Lord Coleraine and Lord Aldington also say that irradiation of the fuel to 3,500 or even 4,000 megawatt days of heat per ton is a practical proposition. This has been confirmed in the annual report recently published of the Atomic Energy Authority, in which it is stated:
Fuel similar to that loaded into the Berkeley reactors of the C.E.G.B has been irradiated in the Chapelcross reactors to an average irradiation of 3,500 MWd(H)/t without any significant sign of deterioration; the irradiation is continuing. Fuel elements of the Calder type, which have many features in common with the Bradwell fuel elements, have achieved similar irradiation levels.
It therefore seems that both the United Power Company and the Atomic Energy Authority believe that the 3,000 MWd(H)/t is too conservative.
Next, the noble Lords say that a load factor of 75 per cent., which is assumed for nuclear power stations, is unrealistically low and that 85 per cent. would be a more reasonable figure. Again, these assertions are borne out by the experience of the Atomic Energy Authority.
If one takes all these factors, together with the reduction in the price of uranium ore which has recently been negotiated, it seems quite probable that nuclear power may already be competitive with that generated by conventional means, and if there were an extension of the Magnox programme there is no doubt that while no further increase in operating temperatures is feasible with this design, there could well be further capital cost reductions due to the increasing experience of the firms in the

design and construction of these stations. An increase in the size of the programme would in itself lead to lower costs. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington gave some figures in the debate last week. He said this:
If one reactor of a particular new design could be offered at a cost of £105 per kilowatt, the capital cost per kilowatt of four reactors ordered for consecutive building would be about £85—a saving of just under 20 per cent."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10th July, 1963; c. 1415.]
To sum up, we have a situation now of too many consortia chasing too few contracts. It is the Government's responsibility to decide, now that this crisis is upon us, what is to be the future of the nuclear power programme after 1968. To do this on a rational basis they have to make up their minds, on the basis of the factors I have mentioned, how the costs of nuclear power generation are to be calculated and on what factors. That has to be faced. If a decision is not made very soon, the existence of these consortia which have been built up so laboriously over the years will be placed in jeopardy and our nuclear power industry, which at present leads the world, will be incapable of meeting the demands which are certain to be placed upon it in the Seventies.

2.26 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough: Like the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) for raising this point. I fully appreciate and understand his feeling for his own constituents. I want to raise a matter of principle. I shall not go into the technical details raised by the hon. Member for Orpington. I feel that there is a very serious matter of principle, which has kept me up till nearly half-past two in the morning. It is where the Government stand in relation to a nationalised industry.
I, too, have read very carefully the debate in another place. I have had the opportunity of speaking to my noble Friend Lord Coleraine. I do not think the facts can be disputed. They are these. There was the consortium, which many months ago had a letter of intent. Those who are mixed up in their daily life in commercial affairs, as I am, know what a letter of intent is. A letter of


intent is an honourable document, a document between two parties, which means what it says. It is a letter of intent, intent to carry out a contract. That letter of intent was issued by the Central Electricity Generating Board, the chairman of which is Sir Christopher Hinton, which is a monopoly, a State monopoly, a nationalised monopoly. There is only one member of the Labour Party present in this most important debate. I hope that he will take note of this.
That letter of intent was issued. After that, there were no less than 150 plus interviews between the consortium and the Central Electricity Generating Board. At the end of tht time and quite suddenly the matter was stopped. Suddenly the whole negotiations were ended and the consortium was told that it would not get the contract. It naturally asked why. It was told that it was on two grounds. One was design, the other was cost. I cannot believe that after more than 150 discussions which took place after a letter of intent had been handed out the Board could possibly begin to think that the question of design was a proper reason for breaking off the negotiations.
I understand—and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to put me right if I am wrong—that English Electric, which afterwards got the contract, had not at the time put in a quotation. If so, the question of costs also falls to the ground. My point, therefore, is a simple one. I have come here tonight to fight against nationalisation. I am, for this reason, opposed to all hon. Members opposite—who at present are represented by just two hon. Members. I have always believed that we would at some time come up against this major disadvantage of nationalisation; the concentration of too much power in too few hands.
I will not say anything against Sir Christopher Hinton, but I have heard some unkind things said about him. I have even heard him described in his industry as a little Hitler. I do not believe that any one person in industry should be allowed completely to cancel negotiations—a letter of intent—on such flimsy grounds as have so far been put forward in this case.
Whatever may be said, we return to the initial commercial argument that a

letter of intent was made—as near as does not matter to a contract—an enormous amount of work was done, promises of employment to hundreds of thousands of my hon. Friend's constituents were given and suddenly, apparently at the whim of one man, the whole thing was dropped. The whole of the atomic power industry's future is concerned in this and is in jeopardy. I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would make it clear whether or not the Government support that sort of thing.
My right hon. Friend has power to step in. He can look into this matter. Will he do it? Or will he make himself the lackey to a nationalised industry? I cannot believe that the Government, of which I am a most loyal supporter, would be a party to that. This is a serious matter which demands immediate and careful consideration. I hope that we will be told tonight that the whole subject will be reopened and reconsidered and that the relationship between the Minister and the head of this nationalised industry will be reconsidered.

2.33 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): I would not like anything I say in replying to this short debate to give the impression that I have not got great sympathy with those who are concerned, either directly or indirectly, with the problems of unemployment in the North-East. The House will appreciate that I have no responsibility for such matters, which are mainly for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and my noble Friend the Lord President.
It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend has powers to give directions of a general character to the nationalised industries and their boards. I do not believe that any such powers were ever intended to confer on my right hon. Friend the power to intervene in the negotiation of a single commercial contract. The fact that these powers have never been used is, I think, a cause of gratification rather than of blame.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the firm of Richardsons, Westgarth, in his constituency, which has a great and legitimate concern—

Mr. Gough: I am rather surprised at what my hon. Friend has just said. If a Minister has powers and never uses them, what is the use of them?

Mr. Peyton: I am only suggesting that if the working arrangements between Ministers and the nationalised industries do not necessitate the exercise of powers to give directives it is a good thing rather than a bad thing. But I do not wish to pursue that argument now.
As I was saying, I recognise that the firm of Richardsons, Westgarth has a legitimate and perfectly fair interest in this serious matter, but it is true that the contract has not been awarded to the United Power Company, As my hon. and gallant Friend must be aware, the Generating Board has announced that it recognises the particular and peculiar position of Richardsons, Westgarth, and in offering the second contract to English Electric the Board made it a term that the English Electric consortium should negotiate with Richardsons, Westgarth in order to place some of the work with that firm. I cannot possibly add to that tonight—

Commander Kerans: Will the question of further contracts for the North-East be a written contract, or legally binding on English Electric?

Mr. Peyton: I was just saying that I cannot add to that now, and I must make it absolutely clear that neither my right hon. Friend nor I give contracts of any kind.
I must remind both of my hon. Friends that the nationalised industries and their boards—in particular, the Central Electricity Generating Board—have a great responsibility to users; in this case, the users of electricity. While I have the fullest sympathy with those in the North-East who are affected, it would be wholly wrong for the Government and for Ministers to seek to intervene at every stage in the negotiation of commercial contracts, no matter how large or how important.
Quite frankly, I do not think that the hon. Member for Orpington strengthened my hon. and gallant Friend's case. He gave his views on the general question of the future of nuclear power, and I do not propose to follow him at any length there. He made it perfectly clear that

while he had read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and that of Lord Aldington as well, he had not greatly studied the speech of my noble Friend, Lord Carrington. I hope that he will read that speech, because Lord Carrington stated the Government's position, and I have nothing to add—

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbock rose—

Mr. Peyton: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member. I must also disappoint him by saying that I have nothing whatever to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the subject of the Powell Commitee, nor have I anything to say about whether or not the Government have views about there being too many consortia.
I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) is very concerned indeed to oppose the whole principle of nationalisation. This, of course, is an attitude which is shared by Conservative Members of Parliament, whether they be in the Government or not, but I really do think that we must be fair and realistic here. It would be very odd—I hope that my hon. Friend is not counselling it—if the Government were to seek to make the rôle of these industries, which is difficult enough, even more difficult or, indeed, quite impossible. Sir Christopher Hinton has upon his shoulders an immense responsibity. The problems of the electricity industry are vast and the problems of this new nuclear development are enormous. It would ill become us if, at every turn, we were to seek to nag and to obstruct him in the performance of his most difficult task.
Of course, my right hon. Friend can always look into these matters. I do not like that horrible phrase, so regularly used, about keeping things "under review"; but he is always reviewing these matters, and, of course, he is in close consultation with the Central Electricity Generating Board. It is most unfair and unjustified for my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham even to raise the possibility or suggestion that my right hon. Friend might be the lackey of a nationalised industry. I can only say that my right hon. Friend, together with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, has very much in


mind the heavy responsibilities which lie upon them both.

Mr. Gough: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he allow me to say that, in my opinion, his reply is derisory and insulting. I remember well that my hon. Friend, when he was sitting as a private Member for Yeovil, used to battle for his own constituents and their gloves. I tell my hon. Friend now that the gloves are off, and I am not prepared to accept his reply tonight. He has said nothing about the letter of intent or the 150 meetings which took place afterwards. More than ever before, I feel that I have been brushed off with a very poor reply, and I am very angry about it.

Mr. Lubbock: Before the Parliamentary Secretary answers that point, will he take note of this one also? He accused me of not having read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. In fact, I have read it very carefully, and the only thing which the noble Lord said about the future of the nuclear power programme after 1968 was that it was to continue. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that that might quite easily mean that it would continue with the advanced gas-cooled reactor and not with the continuation of the Magnox programme? That was the point of my question. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that he had better read his noble Friend's speech before making sarcastic remarks across the Floor about whether or not I have read it?

Mr. Peyton: I have already said that I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Orpington in discussing the whole of the future nuclear power programme.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham—I am sorry that he has left his place already—I say this about the letter of intent. No one denies that there was the letter of intent, but, like most letters of intent, it was issued subject to certain conditions. In the opinion of those who wrote that letter, the conditions were not fulfilled. I do not think that I can fairly be asked to say anything further than that.

Commander Kerans: I am not entirely in agreement with what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak. He may ask a question before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down, but he must not make another speech.

Orders of the Day — JUTE INDUSTRY

2.44 a.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I wish to press for a reconsideration of the Board of Trade's proposals to reduce the safeguards for the United Kingdom jute manufacturing industry. All the people whose opinion I respect, on both sides of the industry, agree that what the Minister of State suddenly sprang on the industry a week or two ago would mean a substantial loss of jobs. It is, of course, extremely difficult to be accurate in one's prophecies in these matters, and I enter upon them with all diffidence, but those whose opinions I judge to be good suggest that the loss of employment if these proposals are persisted in is likely to be around 5,000, and they fear it could possibly be worse than that, because the nature of the proposals might cause inside the industry a loss of confidence which would have the effect of a reduction of morale which would lead to a further reduction in jobs.
Here we have an industry which since the war, I think everyone agrees, has shown enterprise and courage. It is being put in a position which I think is really quite unjustified. I say unjustified because the Government have on a number of different occasions given pledges in this House about the need to safeguard the jute manufacturing industry. Perhaps the clearest and most concise of the pledges was given to me in the House on 24th March, 1955. It may be just as well to put it on the record now. The then President of the Board of Trade, who is still a senior member of the Cabinet, told me this:
Unless an alternative method of safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry can be worked out and introduced, the removal of control over the import of jute goods would have a serious effect on the prosperity, efficiency, output and employment of the industry. In view of the heavy concentration of the industry in Dundee and its distance from the main centres of population, there would be a danger of continuing large-scale unemployment It is in view of this position that


Ministers decided that the industry must be safeguarded…"—[Official Report, 24th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 2245.]
I do not think that the special case for safeguarding the jute manufacturing industry can be put more clearly or more succinctly than it was put by the then President of the Board of Trade.
I think it is only fair to say on behalf of the industry itself that it responded to the very generous protection which was afforded by successive Governments since the war. It has spent £13 million on modernising itself, and on the trade union side a completely new wages structure has emerged, and on the whole the industry, which was not altogether a happy one before the war, has now a remarkable record of both modern ideas and of good labour relations.
Lord Eccles, when he was President of the Board of Trade, made the first breaches in the system of Government jute control, but for some time the Government have very wisely been letting the industry alone. Then suddenly, on Friday, 5th July, the industry was told by the Minister of State to come to London for a meeting with him on Tuesday, 9th July. The Minister then laid before them in confidence a plan which I understand was much more drastic than anything any of them had envisaged, and the Minister of State said he would come up to Dundee himself on 18th July to hear their reply.
I should like to make it clear that no one—certainly not I—is making any complaint against the Minister personally for the way he has handled this matter. Lord Eccles, if I may say so, much irritated the industry by the manner he put forward much more modest proposals than the Minister of State put to the industry. It is the best tribute to the Minister that he has been able to continue the personal respect of those with whom he has been engaged in very hard negotiations despite the fact that he makes Lord Eccles seem the champion of the interests of Dundee.
But why have the Government suddenly decided to make these drastic proposals at this stage, at the tail end both of a Parliamentary Session and, probably, the lifetime of a Parliament itself? One of the reasons that I understand has been given is that the recent verdict of the Restrictive Practices Court involved

a condemnation of the system of Government jute control. It ought to be said to the Minister as plainly as possible that this is not true. What the Court did was to end the private price agreements in the industry. It took the view that the agreements were not essential to the Government's protection of the industry.
But the Court made its view of Government price control crystal clear. It said that if Government safeguards were not continued there would be what its distinguished chairman termed serious and persistent unemployment in Dundee and district. The Court also said that it assumed that the Board of Trade would and should continue to safeguard employment in the industry.
I confess I am astonished that the Board of Trade should be putting forward the Court's decision as one of the grounds for making the changes. The Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned in the matter laid before the President of the Board of Trade immediately after the Court's decision their views on the implications of the decision, because we feared this situation arising. We certainly have had the impression from the replies the President has given in the House that he cannot have studied the very good brief with which we provided him.
The second reason given for reducing protection for the jute industry is that this is our duty to the underdeveloped countries of Asia in order to allow them to raise their living standards by increasing their own exports. This seems to be a much more important and much weightier argument than the one about the Restrictive Practices Court's decision.
In the case of the jute industry, it seems to me that the Board of Trade in advancing this argument gives only half the case. It says that we must help India by allowing more of her jute goods to come into this country. But if we help India in that way, in present conditions we are as a necessary consequence harming Pakistan, which earns a very large part of its foreign exchange by selling raw jute for consumption in the jute works of Dundee and the Angus area.
The Government's argument comes down to the fact that we must help the under-developed Commonwealth country


of India by harming the even more under-developed Commonwealth country of Pakistan. That does not seem in present circumstances a particularly sensible way to go about improving Commonwealth relations or assisting developing Commonwealth countries. It would be much better, in the view of the Opposition, for the Government to use their power to plan these matters so that one might seek to adjust the certainly conflicting interests between the various countries concerned.
I have recently been on a visit to India and Pakistan with my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the late John Strachey, whom I miss particularly and personally on this occasion. We spent a fortnight talking to the Ministers and planners of the two countries about these very problems and how Britain could best assist them to raise living standards. I did not get the impression from the Indians that they were pressing urgently for the lowering of the existing safeguards. Of course India would welcome easier markets in this country, but the fact is that we form a very small part of the Indian export markets in jute at present. Their main markets are in the newer countries of Asia and Africa which consume basic jute goods—sacks and so on—on a much bigger scale than the more developed countries. We got the impression in Pakistan that they would be appalled if we were to reduce Dundee's consumption of raw jute.
In any case there is the argument that our ability to help the under-developed countries—and we hear this much more from hon. Members opposite than from this side of the House—depends an our economic strength and viability, and I cannot see that, in the long run, it will help us to help under-developed countries if we do serious damage to a major Scottish industry without first being able to take steps to provide a new and more modern industry in its place.
I am astonished that the Board of Trade, of all Departments, which is supposed to be the Department providing and distributing industry, should be so ready to destroy jobs on such a substantial scale at a time when it has been singularly unsuccessful in attracting new jobs to the Dundee development

district. I asked the President of the Board of Trade, after he made his announcement about jute, what the prospects were for new industry in the remainder of the area. He said that he had no idea. He could offer no hard information about anything new coming along. We get the impression that anything that looks promising is something we get by our own efforts and not what the Board of Trade is able to assist us in getting.
The Minister of State would have been in a stronger position on his visit to Dundee on Friday of last week in seeking adjustments of the present structure of the industry if he had been coming to perform the ceremony of laying the foundation stone of some great new electronics or automobile works. That is what planning and the distribution of industry mean, if they mean anything.
It is ridiculous to damage a traditional industry before we have been able adequately to get new industry in its place. Perhaps the Under Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm that it is easier to lose traditional jobs in Scotland than it is to attract new ones. The Government's approach to this is very irresponsible.
What are the arrangements for co-ordinating the work of the various Departments? I put a question today to the Minister of Labour. I asked him what estimate he had made of the likely effects on employment in the Dundee area if the Minister of State's proposals were to go through. He said that no such estimate had been made because there were too many uncertainties. In a major change like this, surely one of the first things to do is to get some sort of estimate as the effect on employment. Among Ministers themselves at the personal level there has been, in dealing with this problem, a story of incompetence and chaos which is unusual even by the present standards of the Government.
While the Minister of State was in Dundee telling the jute industry in confidence of the Government's proposals, the Prime Minister, in London, was telling the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), in a blaze of headlines, something quite different from what the Minister of State was saying. As for the Secretary of State for Scotland, he does not say anything at all to anybody.
The Government are in a miserable muddle over this. Here are 5,000 Scottish jobs at stake when we already have a grave unemployment problem. There is confusion, chaos and contradiction from Ministers ranging from the Prime Minister to the Minister of State.
According to the Dundee Courier and Advertiser, the Minister of State said to the Press in Dundee:
I am not in a position to say what is to happen.
I am not the Government, just a part of it.
I am afraid that the Minister's disarming modesty was to be justified a good deal more than he had a right to believe, because at that moment the Prime Minister was holding his interview with the hon. Member for South Angus. In the Press the next morning, we were told that the Prime Minister had intervened personally in the threat to jute jobs in Dundee and district from the Board of Trade's proposals to reduce the protection given to the home jute industry. The hon. Member for South Angus was quoted as saying that he assumed that the standstill about which the Prime Minister had apparently talked to him meant that there would be no change in the situation for a year.
When there was a natural conflict between what the Minister of State was saying and what the Prime Minister was being reported as having said, it must be said for the hon. Member for South Angus that he stuck to his guns and said:
I understood the Prime Minister to say that there would be a 12-month standstill on any Government changes to affect the jute industry in Dundee.
I am sorry that the hon. Member is not in his place—he knew that this debate was to take place. I think that he knows perfectly well by this time, as does every other hon. Member with a constituency affected by these proposals, that the proposals made by the Minister of State in Dundee do not involve any standstill in the sense in which the hon. Member for South Angus used the expression. It is true that the Minister put forward some welcome modifications of his original proposals and some welcome delays in the original timetable he suggested, but what he put forward—and I shall not give details which are still confidential—was a whole series of

changes in the present structure of protection for the jute industry all of which was to come into effect almost immediately, as soon as agreement from the rest of the Government could be obtained.
I am raising this debate tonight because we are entitled to know whether the Prime Minister was right in what he said about Government policy for the jute industry, or whether the Minister of State was right in what he told the industry in Dundee on Thursday.
As the Minister will appreciate, there is grave uncertainty in Dundee and that uncertainty has been greatly increased by this confusion between what the Prime Minister was saying in London and what the Minister of State was saying in Dundee. The least we are entitled to get is an unequivocal declaration from the Minister of which of these two proposals now represents Government policy.
In the light of the history of this problem, the least that Dundee deserves is, in the words of the hon. Member for South Angus,
a 12-month standstill on any Government changes to affect the jute industry in Dundee.
The existing Government jute control was originally a temporary war-time measure which was continued by successive Labour and Conservative Government in peacetime as a matter of deliberate Government policy. This was done because immediately after the war, the Labour Government set up a jute working party, which published a very fine report, to which the Restrictive Practices Court paid particular tribute. In the light of this, it is only reasonable that the Government should not depart from their pledges and break with the kind of safeguards which have existed in the past. At the least, before that break there should be another thorough investigation of the problems of the jute manufacturing industry, perhaps in this case in the context of the unemployment problems of this part of Scotland where the jute industry is still the dominant employer.
The Minister may not know of this in detail, but in the Highlands of Scotland we recently had controversy about whether the Highland hydro-electric board should be allowed to carry on its independent operations, which allowed the people of the Highlands to earn for


themselves what amounted to a certain amount of subsidy. When this became a matter of controversy, the Secretary of State set up a committee to inquire into the matter.
What we should have from the Government is a Mackenzie Committee for the Dundee jute industry. This is justified by the history of the matter. I have, perhaps, a more practical reason for feeling that the kind of breathing space that this would afford would be of great value for Dundee. If we get the year's standstill about which the hon. Member for South Angus has made so much publicity, there would by that time be a new Government in power with a different outlook on these economic problems.
From his past experience at the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has an intimate knowledge of the problems of the jute industry and on many occasions in Dundee he has explained that our philosophy is to use the economic power of the Government to prevent uncontrolled, unregulated market forces from ruining the jute industry, on which the welfare of such a substantial proportion of the working people of the Dundee area depends.
It is only by that kind of economic planning that, in the long run, we can safeguard the prosperity of an area like Dundee. Tonight, we deserve clarification of the Government's policy for the jute industry and I hope we will get an undertaking that we will have this kind of investigation before any changes are carried out.

3.7 a.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) spoilt an excellent speech by going into nights of fancy towards the end of it about things which seem to me to be most unlikely. For the rest, I agree with much of the case made by the hon. Member about the difficulties facing particularly Dundee, but also towns in Angus, Perthshire and Fife.
It was only in June this year that I called on a factory in my constituency which was corresponding with the Board of Trade with a view to the expansion of the capacity of the factory. It therefore came as a surprise to me a month

later that there appeared to be a plan for substantial contraction in the industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to tell us something about the background of why this has been envisaged.
It would appear that one idea for the contraction came from the need to bring down the price of jute because of loss of business to the trade following the substitution of other materials. Our traditional jute trade is, I think, turning much more to methods of bulk handling. When paper is used as an alternative, a 1-cwt. sack costing 9d. as against nearly 2s. for a jute sack, any alteration in the protection against raw jute coming into this country would not be likely to have an impact on the amount of jute goods that we use.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East mentioned, rightly, the pressures from India and Pakistan. As he said, however, the proportion of the Indian output which comes to this country is only about 5 per cent. and the chances for those countries to expand their outlet for manufactured jute goods will be much more in Africa and Asia than in Europe, where bulk handling is progressively taking over many of the traditional ways in which jute has been used in the past. Pakistan is also interested in sending us raw jute.
When it comes to the restrictive trade practices angle it would be as well to read this paragraph of the Restrictive Practices Court judgment:
The evidence which was laid before us, and the statistical comparison of operating cost between the United Kingdom and similar costs in India and Pakistan, left us in no doubt that the conditions envisaged by the Working Party in 1948 in their admirable comprehensive and valuable report, as justifying protection of the home industry, continue to apply and, so far as can reasonably be foreseen, will continue to do so.
Therefore, it is difficult to see why when in June the possibility of expanding capacity was still being considered there was suddenly the thought of contraction.
I admit that a year ago when we were considering going into the Common Market there was a likelihood of considerable changes resulting in the jute trade in Dundee. In Dundee alone about 17,000 people are employed in the industry, or about 35 per cent. of the


working population, and this spreads to ancillary trades and to towns in Angus and Fife. If we are committed, as we all are, to an expansion of 4 per cent. in the economy, how can we suddenly turn round and take out an enormous amount of one particular industry in one district and feel that we are living up to what we promised to do?
This raises the question of what action we should take. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), who regrets being unable to be here tonight, received assurances from the Prime Minister that there would be a standstill for a year, but we cannot leave all these people who are employed in the industry in uncertainty even for a year. Something must be done to work out the future of the industry. There must be a working party or an inquiry so that we can give the people who are employed ample assurance not that there will be a standstill for a year but that a certain percentage of the trade will be replaced by other jobs and that the other percentage will remain because it performs a useful function in the country's economy and provides an outlet for the Commonwealth raw material.

3.12 a.m.

Mr. William Ross: I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, East(Sir J. Gilmour) to the Minister of State, Board of Trade. It followed very closely the temperate, reasoned and constructive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). I do not think that if the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had been faced with the mystery and confusion that has followed this sudden crippling decision he would have been quite so equable. I know him reasonably well.
My sympathy goes out to the hon. Member for Fife, East, because he is the vice-chairman of the Unionist Party in Scotland and, like the Secretary of State for Scotland, he did not know. Nobody told him. I dare say that the hon. Member is to help in the selection or support of a candidate in a bye-election in Scotland. That bye-election, regrettably, is in Dundee. I wish that he did not have that task in front of him.
Like my hon. Friend, I wish that tonight we had the stalwart support of

John Strachey who battled on this same problem a few years ago. I had the advantage of meeting Lord Provost McManus and an official of the city of Dundee the other day. If I had not realised it before, I realised then how Dundee feels not only about the decision and how it was taken and conveyed to the city but also about the consequences of that decision.
Scottish Members know that the scars of the pre-war depression in Dundee linger on. There was nothing worse than having a city like Dundee entirely dominated by an industry which was more depressed than any other industry. We have moved away from that state of affairs, thanks not to the new Act, which was to bring about a great expansion of industry in Scotland, but to the old Distribution of Industry Act and to the work of the Labour Government who considerably extended the range of industries in Scotland.
I remember the late Walter Elliot saying time and again that it would be a serious mistake to turn our attention to the new industries and to forget the old ones which are the backbone of the Scottish economy, and this is what is happening in Dundee.
This has been an appalling day for Scotland. Earlier today my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who was standing where I am standing now, received a reply about the shipbuilding industry. My hon. Friend represents, among other parts of that area, Clydebank, which thought that at the last election it had been promised the order for the replacement of the Queen Mary, and it also thought that with the revival of interest in the Q4 it would receive Government help. These hopes have now been doused. My hon. Friend drew attention once again to the effects of the decline in the shipbuilding industry, and indeed the neglect of it, and to the decline in other traditional industries, leading to the voluntary liquidation of Denny's.
Can we end the day by receiving some good news from the Minister of State? The total employed in the jute industry is about 18,000, 5,000 of whom are threatened with unemployment. Indeed, it is more than a threat—it is a certainty. The only uncertainty lies in the fact


that they do not know how long it will be before they lose their jobs.
I do not know why the Government have taken this decision. Is this a bit of bureaucratic cleaning up? The Government do not like this lingering jute control and it may well be that as part of the preparatory work for going into the Common Market they had their plans ready for the gradual removal of this protection.
The suggestion has been made that the substitutes do not affect the part that will be hit, and that in any case this has been going on for some time. Anyone who knows the situation in India and Pakistan knows that it is not possible in this instance to aid India without harming Pakistan, and that it is not possible to aid India without harming Dundee. We have to balance one against the other and there is no doubt that, in view of Scotland's economy, this proposal will result in greater damage to Dundee than benefit to India.
We have had this argument before. The Minister of State suggested that this was being done in the interests of the expansion of trade. This was reported in the Dundee Courier. As Scots, we have to ask why Scotland should be sacrificed, in that the hoped-for increase in trade will not come to Scotland. The hon. Member will rind in his Ministry files and files from hon. Members representing Scottish divisions on the question of the shale industry. He will find more files on the paper industry, and in the case of all of them, in respect of the protection that they lost, the same reply was given—"Trade will increase, and Scotland will get the benefit in other ways." It just has not happened that way. In fact, at this moment unemployment in Scotland is so serious that even an increase of 2,000, or the loss of another industry or factory anywhere, makes a difference.
This is not the decision of private industry, taken as a result of the difficulties that private industry has got into; this is a deliberate decision of a Government who have pledged full employment in Scotland and elsewhere without expanding the opportunities in Scotland. We are going to have the removal, to a considerable extent, of the protection now afforded to the jute industry, to-

gether with a loss of 700 jobs right away, even under the Government's plan, and a further considerable building up over three years.
What is the objection to a standstill of a year? There has been no great justification why this should be done right away. The argument in relation to the Restrictive Practices Court does not stand up. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East and the hon. Member for Fife, East; it does not make sense viewed from the point of view of time, if it makes sense in any other way.
It has been suggested that a pledge has already been given that there shall be a standstill. Obviously the Minister of State did not know about it when it was made, because he was carrying out his Departmental duties in Dundee at the time, meeting the people concerned, talking and arguing and trying to convince them that he was right while they tried to convince him that they were right. It is said that he said to them, "After all, I am not the Government. I am only part of it. I am not in a position to say what is to happen."
At the same time that he was saying that the Head of the Government was talking informally in the next room to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), who came out from that discussion virtually believing that the Prime Minister had promised him a year's standstill. He got headlines in his local newspaper of the kind that Members of Parliament always dream of—"Jute Gets a Year of Grace." When I read that I thought that I might be reading the wrong kind of newspaper about the wrong kind of matter of moment. Is the industry to get a year of grace?
I wish that the hon. Member for South Angus had been here to tell us about this, because it is no longer confidential. This information has been given to the Press. If this is a misunderstanding of what the Prime Minister said it is not the first misunderstanding that there has been between the Prime Minister and somebody who thought that he had been promised something. I am concerned about the effect of this on Dundee. It is not a question of political fortunes but a question of the lives and happiness of a great section of the population of that city


and that area. Many of the smaller parts are much more dependent as a result of the changes which have taken place in jute than is Dundee itself. What is their position to be? Are they to be commuter towns and villages and to be told, as towns and villages in my constituency are, that their hope for employment can be met by the large industrial city—although in my constituency it is a town, not a city?
The Government have placed Dundee in a special position. Although Dundee has had very considerable help and its fortunes in industry have been very much better than they were, it has been recognised as pretty dangerous from the point of view of economic stability and it has been retained as a scheduled area under the Local Employment Act. This was all the more reason why the Government should have hesitated in doing anything to worsen that position without having ensured that there would be alternative employment. It is all the more reason why the MacManus Plan should be accepted—call it the Duncan Plan if you like. I wish someone would "wake Duncan with our knocking" here to night. Then he could come and tell us what happened. Whatever happened, the standstill plan has merit in it in relation to the position in which the Government have put Dundee by scheduling it, although the Minister will tell us that it has been stop-listed.
The purpose of the Local Employment Act was to anticipate unemployment and take action in advance. Can the Minister of State tell us whether or not the Board of Trade has sure and certain knowledge that the men and women who will be rendered unemployed as soon as the Order is put into operation will have alternative jobs in the area? He knows quite well that they will not. All the circumstances are such that while there is still time the Government should stay their hand and accept the proposals that have been put forward and have the support of the Lord Provost. The Lord Provost was speaking on this occasion as the head of the city, speaking for the employers and the employees in the jute industry and, I am perfectly sure, for the people of the whole area. Accept the one year standstill, accept the need for a working party or independent inquiry to go fully into these problems of the

industry and whether or not it is able to make changes in relation to its special position in regard to protection.
That done, I am sure that everyone would be, not entirely relieved because the fear world be there, but much more content that the Government were acting in the interests of the jute industry and the people of Dundee and had the Scottish economy at heart. The Government are very lucky indeed. I wonder if there was anything accidental in the timing of this debate at half-past three in the morning with only a few days left before the House rises for the long Recess You, Mr. Speaker, know what the Scots are like when they are roused and have a fight on their hands. We have a fight on our hands and the vice-chairman of the Scottish Unionist Party, I am sure after that speech, would support us. We could bring pressure to bear and create a Parliamentary opportunity to bring it to bear on the Government. It would be far better if the Government were to admit that they had made a mistake and, without pressure, acceded to the wishes of the people of Dundee as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East.

3.30 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green): I must first thank the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) for the moderate way in which he put the case and the kindly personal references to myself, for which I am very grateful. Of course I realise, as I did before I went to Dundee—I realised it even more afterwards—the natural fears which any industry must have at proposals for change. I have sought to accommodate those fears as best I may.
In replying to hon. Members I hope that I am right in saying that the main question which has been put to me is, why change the system of protection for the industry at all? It is suggested that the system of protection is working well, that nothing has happened to suggest that it should be changed and that any change would create more unemployment. This is the heart of the questions put to me. They are very proper questions to put to me.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East started his speech with a certain set of


proposals which were out of date and he finished his argument with the new and modified proposals which I put in Dundee when I went there. We are not now talking about the original proposals with which he started his speech. The new proposals, which are still in some details under discussion, represent a very substantial measure of protection indeed. I am sorry that I cannot at this moment state the details of those proposals because some of them are still under discussion. It might well be that if I could state them, a great deal of what was said tonight would not have had to be said. But I cannot state them, for a reason which the House will fully understand and accept; as long as proposals are under discussion, I am certain that it is right to keep them confidential.
Within the context of the Common Market negotiations we had discussions with a whole range of industries, and in particular the jute industry. During those discussions the jute industry displayed a remarkable degree of keeping of confidence from which, in retrospect, I should like to thank it. It is as well that that was the case, because if they had not kept the confidence properly reposed in them, a great many fears would have been raised which in the event were unnecessary because we did not join the Common Market. Because confidence in another sense is such an important matter for any industry, the breaking of a confidence would have broken the confidence in the industry and we should have had much worse unemployment problems in Dundee if confidence had not been kept in those discussions than we face now. I am certain that it is in the interests of the industry that confidence should be maintained until the discussions with the industry are finished. They are not yet completely finished. This is my view. Because I hold to it very sincerely, I am afraid I cannot publish tonight the details of the proposals I have made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they contain a very high degree of protection.
I understand the two reasons why Dundee advances a special case for protection. The first reason is the concentration of this industry within this area. If anything drastic happened to

the industry, it would be a drastic and concentrated blow to a number of people concentrated in a particular area and therefore all the more vulnerable because they are concentrated. It is because I understand it that I promise I am offering a very substantial continuing degree of protection.
The second reason that appears to make the Dundee jute industry especially in need of protection is that it is one of those rare cases where the raw material is purchased from countries which are in a position to produce also the finished goods. There may therefore be circumstances in which in order to further their own production of the finished goods India and Pakistan contrive penalties for Dundee on the price of the imported raw material. These are the two reasons, as I understand it, why special degrees of protection are required, requested, demanded, in Dundee. I have tried to meet these two reasons in the modified proposals I have put forward. I cannot defend myself further tonight than by pointing out that I have, I hope, isolated the two major reasons why special protection is needed for the industry in this area. I have seen the two reasons why and I have tried to meet them. I hope I have succeeded in meeting them.
I have very much appreciated the way in which the industry has put its case and the responses it has made. I believe that the industry understands that the decision of the Restrictive Practices Court is an important element, both in its thinking and in the Government's thinking. Unless something can be done about it—this, I think, means changing the method of protection hitherto afforded to the industry—I believe that the industry's present method of protection will operate increasingly on out-of-date costings. This must flow from the decision of the Restrictive Practices Court. Unless something is done to change the method of protection, the existing means of protection will become less and less worth while to the industry. This is a major reason why the method of protection should be changed. I say nothing at the moment about the level of protection, because quite properly and understandably much has been made of the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, while I was saying something in Dundee, was saying some-


thing different in London. My right hon. Friend was not saying anything different to what I was saying in Dundee. I accept that some ears hear differently the same things that are said. However, the Prime Minister and I were not saying different things and I am perfectly clear about that. People may make different things of what is said, but that is not the same as agreeing that different things were said.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can we get it clear that no proposal has been made for a 12-month standstill on any changes affecting the jute industry?

Mr. Green: A jolly good shot, but I cannot disclose the details. I am sorry. I accept that it is extremely hard for the hon. Member to take this statement from me, but I cannot be moved in any way tonight into disclosing even a part of the proposals. If the industry were to disclose them, that would be one thing. It is not doing so and I appreciate that. I pay tribute to the industry for not disclosing them. It would be dangerous to the interests of the industry if the details were disclosed before we had finished discussing them. I cannot go further than to say that the proposals contain a substantial element of protection.
I invite one further thought. It is one thing to claim that a new Government would have a new, vigorous, radical look at the whole matter and would make changes because changes are needed. It is a strange thing that the proposed new radical Government, bringing in their brand new broom to make great new changes, would in fact insist on maintaining thestatus quo. This is a strange contradiction in thought.
I proposed to the industry in Dundee a substantial continuing measure of protection. I am still discussing the details of that proposal with the industry. I respect the representatives of the industry—employers and trade unionists alike—for respecting the confidence of these discussions. I am sure that we shall need a little more time yet in which to discuss the proposals. As soon as they are finalised they will be published.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: In the House?

Mr. Green: I would be surprised if they were not. I can only repeat that I am not the Government but only a mem-

ber of it. I cannot, of course, speak for my colleagues; and hon. Members opposite know what I mean by that. I will say what I have to say both inside and outside the Government, as it were, but I cannot arrogate to myself the right to say everything. As soon as these discussions are finalised and the final details worked out, I would certainly expect that they would be announced—and I hope sooner rather than later—because it is in the interests of the jute industry in Dundee that we get a change in the method of protection as well as in the level of it as soon as possible.
The longer this sort of change isdelayed—when change is forced on us and the industry—the sharper will it come and the worse will be its effect on the people of Dundee. It is to get this transition period over with as little trouble as possible, for the benefit of the future of the jute industry of Dundee, that I want the change to start soon and not for it to be delayed.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Minister has made a thoroughly disquieting speech, which will have the effect of alarming even further the people of Dundee and of Scotland. What will alarm them most, I think, is to learn that what the Prime Minister apparently said to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) is not the same as what the Minister of State said in Dundee, which means that there is to be up standstill at all, and that either the Prime Minister mislead the hon. Member for South Angus—who is not here—or else the hon. Member himself misled the public. I do not know which it is—

Mr. Green: I can see what the right hon. Gentleman is after—I do not know that he is after the interests of Dundee, if I may say so—but, with the greatest respect, he in still talking, and I admit that I cannot enlighten him with the details of the proposals, in ignorance of the details. I admit that, and I am sorry that he is, but I hope that he will not use his ignorance to stir up some more fears.

Mr. Jay: I am speaking with knowledge of what the Minister has said just now. It is now apparently established that there is to be no standstill. It is


also established that the Minister has made certain proposals to the industry and to the people of Dundee and has given absolutely no assurance that those proposals will not result in the discharge of a large number of people from the industry. I therefore think that we are speaking with quite enough knowledge to be seriously disquieted.
If the Minister will give an assurance, and he must give much more assurance than he has given so far, that he has merely made proposals for improving technically the system of protection, and that those proposals will not result in any lower figure of employment in the jute industry, I think that our fears will be allayed, but he has most notably not given any such assurance. The Minister said that we were only faced with the prospect of altering the protection offered to a certain industry, but that is not the situation at all. This is the city which, probably more notably than anywhere else in the United Kingdom at present is, as we all know, dependent on one particular industry, and the Board of Trade is the Department which is supposed to be responsible for curing local unemployment and bringing new industry and employment to such areas.
We now find that the Board of Trade, gratuitously, for no reason that has been given, is taking action, and the Minister does not deny it, which is likely to lead to heavy unemployment, perhaps amounting to thousands, certainly to hundreds, in this particularly vulnerable area. Unless we can have a further explanation of this, or some further assurance, this is an act of incredible folly by the Government, and makes nonsense of all their protestations about what they are attempting to do for Scotland through the Local Employment Act. If this is to mean5,000 people losing their jobs in Dundee—and if it is not, let the Minister so assure us—it will more than undo all what is hoped will be done by the Wiggins Teape scheme on which the House has spent so much time and finance. That would be an act of in credible folly.
We really want to know from the Minister—and we will be glad to hear him give the answer—the reasons for taking this initiative at all. The Minister said something rather enigmatic and oracular about the Common Market, but

what have the Common market negotiations to do with this? Just because our entry on certain terms into the Common Market, according to what the Government had planned, might have resulted in severe damage to the jute industry, it does not follow that we must damage the jute industry severely when we are not entering the Common Market. If that is not what the hon. Gentleman meant, I can see no point in his reference to the Common Market at all.
What did the hon. Gentleman mean by his equally oracular reference to the decision of the Restrictive Practices Court? Far from there being any reason arising from that decision why the Minister should take an initiative of this kind, exactly the reverse is true. I have the decision of the court here. I shall not read it because it has been mentioned already, but the upshot of it was that the court considered the price agreements of the industry unnecessary because it assumed that the Government would continue the system of protection, and it argued very firmly that the system of protection could continue without the existing price agreements. If, after that, the Government say that, now that the price agreements have gone, the protection must go too, that makes absolute nonsense not merely of the Board of Trade's policy but of the decision of the Restrictive Practices Court. Does the Minister argue that this extraordinary initiative, for which no good reason has been shown, has in some way followed from the decision of the court? He has entirely failed to make that clear.
The only other possible shred of a reason advanced is the argument about the interests of India and Pakistan. Here, I should have much more sympathy with the argument if it really could be shown that some substantial help was being given to either or both of those countries. But, as has been said already, the interest of India in the British market is an extremely small part of total Indian exports, and, so far as substitutes are concerned, it is mainly a matter of paper bags being substituted for jute bags, and the issue in this respect is not one which could possibly be affected by small changes in prices such as might result from the proposals now involved.
No case on any ground seems to have been made out for the change. Can the


Minister give us an assurance that these proposals, which he admits to exist—I realise that there may be reasons why he is unable to expound them, and we have to debate them on that basis—will have no major effect on employment in Dundee? If not, and he really does admit that employment in this exceedingly important industry is seriously in jeopardy as a result of what the Government now propose, will he give us a single good reason for thinking that the change should be made at this time?

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

3.53 a.m.

Mr. John Farr: Briefly, because of the hour, but none the less emphatically, I wish to draw attention to the limited scope of Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1959. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for being on the Treasury Bench again to answer another debate—the third with which he has had to deal—in the series which we have had tonight.
Article 7 of the Order lists five classes of proposed development details of which it is necessary to advertise in the local Press before an application to develop is made to a local planning authority. The five classes, very briefly, are as follows: (a) a public convenience; (b) a rubbish tip; (c) a sewage farm; (d) a slaughter house; (e) places of entertainment. For any other types of development whatsoever, it is not necessary first to advertise in the local Press the intention to develop. This can mean, and often does, that many householders are not aware that a planning authority has approved development near their houses until such time as bulldozers move in and commence work on an adjoining site.
This has been a cause quite recently of much concern and distress, and, indeed, of a deterioration in the relationship between local authorities and householders in a district. It can often cause hardship and loss of property values when, for instance, a site in a residential area is suddenly developed with industrial buildings.
My hon. Friend, I know, is familiar with a particular case which occurred in my constituency in Leicestershire, in the urban district called Wigston, and on the Grange Estate. He was, indeed, good enough to concern himself with this matter and I shall not go into great detail about it now. Suffice it to say that the site comprised some 200 houses built in the nineteen-twenties. When the original householders, who were also the house owners, took their houses in the nineteen-twenties they were given the impression that the estate would be used solely for residential purposes—for houses only. It was a compact estate in a suitable position adjoining the centre of the town of Wigston with little or no industrial development nearby. Up to the war all but two acres of the Grange Estate had been developed for housing purposes. Since the war broke out the remaining two acres remained in an undeveloped state—until fairly recently, when one day bulldozers rumbled on to the site and the preparatory work commenced of clearing the site and laying the foundations for industrial buildings. The people who live on the Grange Estate had no idea whatsoever that any planning proposal had been submitted or considered by the local planning authority for this development.
It is not especially the merits of this case, whether the land should have been used for industrial development or not, which concern me. What does concern me very much is the lack of liaison between the local planning authority and the householders who suddenly, almost overnight, find men and machines moving on to land adjoining their houses without their having been any the wiser, though on inquiry they find that the local planning authority has given consent for the land to be developed for heavy or light industrial purposes.
In the case of the Grange Estate there were furious protests from the residents, but under that Article 7 industrial development as such is not included as one of the categories which have to be advertised before planning consent is given. What is so wrong in this case is that the residents were never asked for their views. They did not know what was going to happen. If they had only had the opportunity to express their views at a proper public inquiry, and only had


known that their case had been considered, they would have felt satisfied about the matter.
There are further examples in this connection. The two which most readily spring to mind have both concerned me to some extent in recent weeks, and both, strangely enough, occurred in the same urban district of Wigston.
The first concerns another proposal for a rather strange development in Wigston, in Granville Road, a fairly choice residential area. I have been up and down the road several times. It is a fairly quiet, discreet road, with a number of shady trees along it. Most of the houses are detached and owner-occupied. A private developer applied for permission to erect on a site there, which was intended for only one house when the road was constructed in the 'twenties or 'thirties, no fewer than 22 what he called "garden flats" but what I would call "battery flats", plus 15 garages.
The application was considered by the local planning authority. Under Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order. 1959,a local planning authority has no need to advertise that it has received such a strange or unusual request for development. It can decide the case on its own merits. The first that the householders in Granville Road need have known about the project was when consent was either given or refused to the application. But, fortunately, the Wigston Urban District Council did in this case what a great many local authorities are having to do these days. It realised that Article 7 of the Order is no longer applicable to present circumstances. It realised that it had to liaise with the ratepayers and householders in the urban district. Off its own bat, and without being required to do so, the council arranged for the proposal first to be advertised. A large number of objections flowed in. The matter is at the moment, I believe, up for decision by the Minister.
The second matter to which I wish to refer in this connection, and again in connection with that urban district, is a letter from a constituent which is typical of letters which I have fairly often received recently. It says:
A licence to build an extension to a factory was granted after repeated refusals…,

to Messrs, Cottam in a residential area. This has considerably reduced the values of surrounding properties and now the situation has been made intolerable by the fact that in this building, originally designed for ground floor garage and a yarn room first floor (licence was granted for this purpose), plain glass windows of the push-out type are being fitted instead of opaque hopper windows. The factory occupants will now almost live in the rooms of the surrounding homes. There is a limit to progress at any price.
I feel that cases like this of friction between local planning authorities and householders are arising chiefly because Article 7 of the Order is no longer adequate for its purpose. During the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1959, which the Order followed, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) addressed a question to my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government when they were discussing this matter in relation to publication of notice of applications for planning permission. My hon. Friend asked:
Before we leave this Clause, could my right hon. Friend give some indication to the Committee of the class of development which it is intended should be designated for procedure under this Clause?
The Minister replied:
That is a matter which will be debated at a later stage in the House when the development order comes to be laid. It was not in the minds of the Government to spread the net so widely so as to include everything, but it was in the minds of the Government to include those things which are particularly unpleasant neighbours. It would give rise to most ill feeling when one faced some smelly or unpleasant process suddenly authorised in one's immediate neighbourhood, one having had no opportunity to know about it and having had no right of action at all, the local authority having given planning permission.
Later he said:
The order itself will be subject to Parliamentary procedure, and Members on both sides will have opportunities of expressing their views on it when it comes to be laid.
Then he added:
I do not even say that when we make the first development order we shall get it right first time, because I believe that we may need to learn by experience."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3rd March, 1959, c. 1093–6.]
That Order was laid before the House on 29th July, 1959. We all remember what happened after that. I was not a Member of this House then. Shortly after the Order was laid Parliament was dissolved, there was a General Election and


in the ensuing excitement, clamour and glamour the Order languished on the Table unnoticed by hon. Members on either side for the 40 Statutory days and thereafter took effect. It was never discussed in the House. Hon. Members never gave positive acceptance to it.
The evidence is piling up and I ask my hon. Friend to replace this Order with another, recognising that the Order is not adequate. The new order should have a considerably enlarged scope, certainly including all industrial premises.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): By leave of the House, Mr. Corfield.

4.9 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I was hoping that the House might refrain from giving me leave at this time of the morning, both for its own sake and for mine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has made almost as good a case for altering this Order as I made myself during the proceedings on the 1959 Bill. He made one mistake however. Far from this Order have gone unobserved. I took it from the Vote Office the day it was laid and studied it very carefully. But I ask my hon. Friend to realise that the Planning Acts do not confer on private individuals rights over other people's property.
It is significant that the estate to which my hon. Friend particularly referred was built in the 1920s on an understanding that the whole of the estate would be reserved for residential use, and that the residents now feel very sore that some alteration has been made. My recollection of this case—and my hon. Friend brought two or three residents to see me—is that there were no restrictive covenants attached to the estate at the time and nothing in the conveyances which suggested that there was any restriction of the use of any part of the estate, or any part of the land which remained undeveloped, which is the piece to which my hon. Friend is referring and where the industrial development is now likely to take place.
Had it not been for the planning Acts, the people who bought originally in the

1920s would not have had a right of objection even to the classes of development listed in Article 7. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Minister at the time of the 1959 Bill, said, these classes of development were explicitly chosen because they were clearly bad neighbours in themselves. Perhaps it would help if I read them in rather fuller detail than my hon. Friend did. Class (a) was buildings for use as a public convenience; (b) was construction of buildings or other operations, or use of land, for the disposal of refuse or waste materials; (c) buildings or other operations or use of land for the construction of septic tanks serving single dwellings or the use of the land for the purposes of sewage disposal; (d) construction of buildings or the use of land for a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard. After that came the slightly less unpleasant use for entertainment of any nature likely to make a noise.
I think that hon. Members would agree that any development, whether it is a high block of flats, even of the luxury type, or whatever, if badly sited can be a bad neighbour. If we are to list everything which could conceivably be a bad neighbour, we would have to advertise, with all the delays which that would cause, every conceivable kind of development. We would also be under mining the whole concept of planning, the purpose of which is to see that any development, whatever it may be, as far as possible fits into its surroundings and that if it does not, planning permission is not granted. In other words, what my hon. Friend is asking for is planning by referendum, and that does not make any sense.
As my hon. Friend knows, local planning authorities are the counties and county boroughs, with various delegation arrangements, which vary up and down the country, with the county districts. However, in this development there was no need to advertise. The local authority could simply refuse or grant planning permission. After all, the authority comprises the elected representatives of the neighbourhood and this is why it has been given planning powers. It was thought, I think rightly, that local representatives would have the local knowledge and that, if local government is to mean anything, they


should have a considerable degree of control and interest in the development of their area.
What my hon. Friend is suggesting is that we should advertise and seek the views of local residents on virtually everything which, as I have put it, is planning by referendum; or else that Whitehall is to look over the shoulders of planning authorities all the time and say, "You cannot do this or you cannot do that; we must have a public inquiry." Quite apart from the fact that this undermines any degree of local responsibility, it clearly would make the planning machine immensely cumbersome—and there are a good many hon. Members who accuse us that it is over-cumbersome already. The fact is that it takes a considerable time to arrange public inquiries, to consider the findings and make the decisions. I do not, off hand, remember the exact figures, but in general it is anything between three and six months.
If we were to double or treble or, perhaps, increase tenfold the number of inquiries by the sort of procedure which my hon. Friend has in mind, we should never get the machine off the ground. We would be in grave danger of grinding the economy to a halt, because a great deal of this development, particularly industrial development, may well be vital to our trade and exports. I cannot believe that to put additional delays of this nature into the whole planning system, bearing in mind that they would probably double or treble present delays, could be in anybody's general interest.
That is not to say that I support the idea that major developments which are likely to alter the character of a neighbourhood should be considered, on application for planning permission, behind closed doors in the sense that no attempt should be made to ascertain local reaction. My hon. Friend will be aware that when the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, which was introduced by my hon. Friend who is now Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, was passed, my right hon. Friend the then Minister undertook to issue a circular on the subject of public bodies', particularly the local authori-

ties', attitude to publicity and to the Press in particular.
That circular was issued in 1961. It had a special part devoted to publicity for certain planning applications. Paragraph 12 refers to Article 7 and goes on to say that
under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, certain types of proposal relating to uses which may be particularly objectionable neighbours have to be advertised: substantial departures from the development plan are also given publicity in appropriate cases: and there is publicity again when public inquiries are held by the Minister in connection with planning appeals and other planning procedures.
There is always the opportunity to object, which generally results in a public inquiry when development plans are considered; and when there is any substantial departure from a development plan there are again opportunities for objections and often a public inquiry is held.
The circular goes on to state, in paragraph 13:
But there are some planning operations not covered by these arrangements where, in the Minister's view, there is scope for greater publicity than at present. The applications which the Minister has in mind are those which, if carried out, would affect the whole of a neighbourhood and which are therefore of considerable interest to a good many people. These cases are, in any given planning area, not very numerous. Nor can they be satisfactorily denned in any legal instrument. It is a question of judging whether a particular proposal is of such interest to a considerable part of the community that it ought to be made publicly known, whether by direct notification to persons affected or by local publicity or both, and an opportunity given for anyone concerned to make his views known before a decision is taken.
My hon. Friend will, I know, consider that this is too vague and lacking in binding force. But surely it is part and parcel of local government that the people on the spot should have discretion how they deal with their public relations. This is basically a matter of public relations, and that is why I firmly believe that local authorities would be wise to put a liberal interpretation on that circular and, when in doubt, err on the side of publicity.
I must, however, warn my hon. Friend that even if they did that, he would not necessarily have fewer objections from his constituents. Over and over again in my office I get cases in which local authorities, going right outside their statutory obligations have consulted


parish councils, have advertised and have had representations sent to them as a result of the advertisement and have considered them most carefully.
If the decision is then taken—and the authority has a perfect right and indeed a duty to take a decision which may well be unpopular—we still have the protests and demands that the Minister should revoke or call-in or have a public inquiry. I appreciate the feelings of people whose property has been depreciated, but the plain fact is that decisions must be taken, and in planning one finds nearly always that whatever decision is taken one offends one party or the other—the local planning authority, the applicant, or the objectors. I think that this will be even more difficult in future than at the moment, because with the vast expansion of the population we will have to develop to greater densities and people do not like having denser development on their doorstep, though I believe that in fact they get used to it more quickly than they have generally expected.
To bring in the cumbersome procedure suggested by the hon. Member might well cause the end of planning. It may be cold comfort, but without planning the constituents he has in mind would have no protection against a neighbouring land owner developing the land exactly as he liked; that was the position before the Planning Act of 1947, in the absence of restrictive covenants which had to be paid for by private rights.
I would ask the hon. Member to go to his constituents and try to make this difficult distinction between the public interest, with which planning Acts are concerned—the development of land to the best use in the public interest as a whole—and the private interest, which is something with which planning is concerned only incidentally in so far as some of the private interests are also public interests. There is a distinction. It is difficult to make, but until it is understood I fear we shall have a lot of disappointment and resentment and people believing that planning exists to replace common law and give rights over other people's property.

Orders of the Day — CEREAL HARVEST

4.23 a.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Paragraph 28 of Cmnd. 1968, "Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1963," states that
The trend of market prices for home grown wheat and barley has been generally downward Prices for the 1962 crop have been particularly low, and the estimated cost of Exchequer support in the financial year 1963–4 is £83 million compared with £64 million in 1962–63.
The next paragraph reads:
The Government have therefore decided to reduce the guaranteed prices of wheat by 5d. per cwt. and of barley by 11d. per cwt. The guaranteed prices for other cereals remain unchanged
This short debate has two objects. The first is to try to help save some Government expenditure and taxpayers' money on cereal payments for the coming year. The second is to prevent the sort of situation where if these payments get unduly high the Government feel that they must cut the subsidy to the farmer in the following year.
Now that we are approaching very close to the 1963 harvest, I believe that we can take certain steps to bring this about. First, we have to examine the likely size of the 1963 harvest. The acreage of barley is likely to be over 4 million acres, compared with under 4 million acres last year. The wheat acreage is expected to be down by nearly 500,000 acres. With a bit of luck and some sunshine during the next 10 days we look like having a bumper harvest. It is estimated that the amount of grain harvested from British farms will touch the 10 million ton mark, made up, roughly, of 6¼ million tons of barley, 3 million tons of wheat, and the balance in oats.
To help the farmer to obtain a decent price, a working party has been set up this year, to give advice not only on barley but on wheat prices. The working party has published what it considers to be the indicated values for grain during July and August. The indicated value is an indication of what the grain is worth in relation to imported supplies, and is the price a grower can expect to receive, and a purchaser can expect to pay, if supply and demand for home-grown grains are


reasonably balanced, and it is important that home producers should make a real effort to obtain this price.
I have heard disturbing reports that farmers are not obtaining the working party prices. I was in Sussex yesterday and heard a farmer say that, having been round to various merchants, the best price that he could obtain for barley was £2 10s. less than the price stated by the working party. I have today taken up this matter with persons from the working party. I am told that the right action for farmers to take, if they are unable to obtain the working party price, is to get in touch with the local branch of the National Farmers' Union. That branch will then get in touch with headquarters, who will in turn get in touch with other millers or merchants who are prepared to pay the proper price.
This depends on the market not becoming too flooded, and therefore farmers obviously have an obligation not to overload it. But there is no reason to suppose that, provided we have reasonably orderly marketing this harvest, the working party guide prices will not be reached, and any farmer who sells below the guide price is a fool, and should be told so quite plainly.
The Government can do two things to help. The first concerns something that I heard about only this evening. Each year we are told that the reason why we cannot get proper prices in the farming industry is that France or some other country is busy exporting grain to us at a lower price. This evening I heard that the French are offering barley at a lower price, landed, than the working party's guide price. This will result in the British price being knocked down by another £1 or £2, and immediately the whole basis of the guide price will be undermined.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming down to answer this debate, because I know what this means to him. I hope that he will check on what I have just said, because this is of great importance. The amount involved may be comparatively small, but at a time when we are trying to stabilise our prices I think that it would be wrong to let the French come into our market and knock down the price. It would

be most unwise of the importers to accept this. If they are going to play about with the British market in this way they will burn their fingers badly before long, because they are asking for a marketing board to be set up to take their place. They would be on dangerous ground.
But my hon. Friend could use his persuasion—I know that it cannot be more—to keep out this grain at harvest time, and to state categorically, when he has had a chance to look at the problem, that there is still no need for the guide price to be lowered.
The other thing that his Ministry could do to help would be to improve its information services on the question of the forward supplies of grain. Last year, even with all the grain that we had—and we had plenty on British farms—we ran out before the end. The millers and foodstuffs manufacturers had to go to France to get grain towards the end of the season. If we could plan our programme of grain sales throughout the year, having better information to guide us, we could keep the price a little higher than it has been in the last year or two.
If my hon. Friend's Department could put out information stating how much grain it thought was on the farms, and how much was needed, and if it could produce figures of imports brought forward by importers and put out advice generally as to the price that farmers should be getting, in order to try to substantiate the guide price that had been issued, we could go a long way towards lifting the price from the bottom. If we could lift the price in that way we might be able to save up to £15 million or £20 million. This is quite within the realms of possibility. If we can save that sum of money this exercise will have been well worth while.
It is up to the farmers to try to stick rigidly to the guidance system for this harvest. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give this short debate his support and that his Ministry in the coming weeks and months will do all it can to see that the guide price is maintained.

4.33 a.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I want to add my support to what my


neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), has said. This is a most important subject. I am also glad to see on the Front Bench, in addition to the Parliamentary Secretary, my other neighbour, the hon. Member for Norfolk South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), who, in his position in the Government and the great office he holds, will have great influence in this matter. This is a question of great concern to at least 1,500 farmers who are constituents of mine. I endorse what my hon. Friend has said, but I want to draw attention to a Motion that I moved exactly eight weeks ago—on 29th May—and which was accepted by the House, for the greater control of imports of winter foodstuffs that come in.
What I said then has been underlined by what my hon. Friend has said today. This is at the heart of the whole matter, in the price that our farmers get, particularly for their grain. As my hon. Friend said, many farmers felt very disappointed when, at the last Price Review, the support price was reduced. In replying to the debate on 29th May my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that he could not make long-term arrangements, but he hoped that he would be able to introduce ad hoc arrangements to meet the different situations that might arise.
Eight weeks having gone by, I again asked my hon. Friend whether we were to get any legislation before the Summer Recess, but he could not provide any time. I appreciate that it is difficult to come to these arrangements, but it is disappointing, after the Minister of Agriculture's statement that there was a change in Government policy, and that we were to have control of imports, to know that nothing can be done before the harvest of our crops this July, August and September.
It is disappointing for our farmers, who welcomed the Minister's statement, and were very grateful to him for what he said. Therefore, if there is something which does not need Parliamentary procedure that the Minister can do during the Recess to improve the situation, I hope that he will do it.
I want to put one practical suggestion to him, which has been hinted at in another way by my hon. Friend the

Member for Lowestoft and which I mentioned eight weeks ago. With the very big barley crop we shall have this year, could not some arrangement of a voluntary nature be made with the big importers and compounders who use a great deal of maize in this country? We have heard it sail that maize and barley can be interchanged for food for cattle, pigs and so on. I know from trade returns that imports of maize are down this year because of the high production of barley last year. Here is something in which the Minister could use his powers of persuasion on importers of maize to bring in very little, or none at all, during the harvest when we shall be in recess.
I hope that in ways like this we can improve the situation for the farmers on whom we so much depend. In their view, and that of many of those who represent them here, they have not been helped financially as much as many other sections of the population in recent years. Once again there is no one on the Liberal benches taking the slightest interest in this great subject of agriculture. That is not surprising because we know that they are not interested in returns to farmers, in support prices or in any form of import control.
I ask my hon. Friend to consult the Minister to see whether something more on the lines we have suggested tonight can be done to see that the price does not drop catastrophically for farmers and throw a heavier burden on the country.

4.37 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): The short debate we have had on this subject has been extremely useful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for raising it, even at this rather later hour in the morning than usual.
It is true that there is a record barley crop. We expect this year probably over 6 million tons, an increase of about ¼ million tons over last year's harvest. It is a very big jump, as my hon. Friend pointed out, but it is not quite so big an increase as that of last year over the year before. The 1962 harvest gave us over 1 million tons more wheat than in


1961 and over ¾ million tons more barley—1·8 million tons more grain altogether. My hon. Friend was not quite right about the total crop, which was 11,313,000 tons. It was amazing that we managed to clear this unprecedentedly large crop during the past season, although prices were not always too good, especially the wheat price, which was below that for barley for a long period.
The marketing of the cereal crop went reasonably smoothly and there was no panic selling of grain. Compounders did their best to keep things moving smoothly. Tribute should be paid to the co-operation of the compounders and merchants and for the way in which they managed to move the very large crop without any dislocation in the process. They were helped in moving the crop last year by the incentive schemes which were introduced in 1961, and in the coming year these will be exactly the same. I was asked what are the prospects for the coming year. We must look at the cereal crop as a whole, because it is dominated by the compounding industry, where there is a considerable degree of interchange, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) pointed out, between the various coarse grains and between wheat and the coarse grains. What happens in one affects what happens in another.
As far as can be seen, it seems that we shall have less wheat than last year because of the smaller acreage and the difficulties of the winter wheat in the very hard winter. We shall have more barley than we have had before, but it looks as though we shall have a little less total cereals than last year—we cannot tell—but even so this will present a formidable problem to us in the coming harvest. We are by no means complacent about it. The barley crop alone will be difficult to move. But the season should get off to a reasonably good start. Compounders and millers have given their normal undertakings, which they have given before—the millers that they will aim to use 1¼ million tons of home wheat in the grist, and the compounders that they will take home barley in preference to imported if it is of good quality and competitive in price.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) for what he said about the working party price, which has been extended to cover wheat. The prices have already been given out. For wheat the price is £20 a ton and for barley £19 10s. a ton ex-farm August delivery. I should like to echo what he said about farmers and merchants; I hope that they will stick as closely as possible to these guide prices. This is a joint venture between the trade and the N.F.U.; we are not directly involved, although it was set up on the initiative of my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Agriculture, Lord Amory. My right hon. Friend has the greatest hope that growers will take the advice of the working party, which has been extended. But it is important to remember what these prices are and what their point is. They are not prices at which buyer or seller undertakes to buy or sell. They could not be enforceable in any way. But they are an indication of what the home crop's value should be if supply and demand is in reasonable balance, taking into account the price of imports.
My hon. Friend's advice to the farmer he met in Sussex is wise and sound advice—that he should consult his local N.F.U. branch if he finds, from the producer's point of view, that it is difficult to reach the guide price. But if, as in autumn, 1961, so much grain is pressed on to the market that the merchant or user has to store the grain, if it is all pushed on to the market at the same time, this is bound to have an effect on the price, by lowering it considerably because of the cost of storage.
In this context, now that the working party has decided to extend its field of action to cover wheat too, I think that it will be particularly useful, because it is important to remember the interrelation of prices. One main difficulty last year was the fact that the price of wheat was below that of barley, and this had a depressing effect on the entire market.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye talked about the merits of the new policy which my right hon. Friend announced on 22nd May. This contemplates import restrictions. Since then my right hon. Friend has referred to the probable mechanism of minimum


prices. It was always impossible to introduce these measures for this harvest. My right hon. Friend took great care to emphasise this fact more than once. One has to negotiate with our traditional suppliers. We have to discuss matters here at home with producers' organisations. It takes time to bring all these negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not letting matters slide.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft about French barley was very important. I can give him a certain amount of reassurance on this. I am aware that very recently French barley has been offered on our market at £17 5s. a ton or £17 10s. a ton c.i.f. In point of fact, in the past few weeks we have approached our six principal overseas suppliers—Australia, Canada, the United States, the Argentine, France and Russia. We have drawn their attention not only to my right hon. Friend's new outline proposals for imports and for cereals but also to the damage that could be done to our market and to their prices by injudicious exports to this country. No formal undertaking was sought, but representatives of these overseas suppliers were specifically asked to bring our request to the notice of their Government. Since then, French barley has again been offered at £17 5s. as far ahead as October next. Such prices cannot fail to have a depressing effect on the market here in the United Kingdom, both for imported cereals and for domestic cereals. Urgent representations have again been made to the French authorities. Discussions are still proceeding. I want to tell the House clearly that it is in the interests of everybody—the exporters and us at home—that these discussions should be brought to a mutually satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible.
Growers have another solution. If they feel that there is a case for antidumping action, it is up to them—perhaps through their own organisation, the N.F.U.—to put in an application to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who would consider it very quickly. The House will know full well what the conditions are: first, that the imports should be really dumped or subsidised; secondly, that they should be causing or threatening material injury;

thirdly, that it should be in the national interest for my right hon. Friend to take action. The House will remember that we acted quickly in mid-1961 when French and Russian barley was being dumped here.
The last point made by my hon. Friend was about the market informaion service. Perhaps I can bring the House a little further up to date on this service. We are having discussions with the trade about this. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely important, and I think that it will be of great service not only to the merchants and compounders but also to producers. What we are hoping to provide periodically, perhaps per month, perhaps per quarter, are our estimated yearly requirements, the total home crop, and the amount of requirements already supplied—first, by imports, secondly, by home crop fed on farms, and thirdly, by home crop sold off farms.
Having done that, we should be able to balance the home crop remaining to be sold or to be fed on the farm and the anticipated imports against the remainder of the requirements. The estimated yearly requirements will easily be ascertained. If this information can be got out separately, I am sure that this will be of great advantage, not only to the trade but also to producers. They will be able to see the market more clearly; its requirements—what remains to be filled up from home supplies and what must be brought in from overseas to fill the demand. This will be of advantage to all concerned.
There are undoubtedly difficulties ahead, but I hope that we will be able to find satisfactory methods whereby this year's crop will be smoothly marketed at reasonable prices for the producers, and that the trade will be able to handle the crop with ease. I hope that the information I have given will show that we are by no means complacent and that we are doing our utmost to see that the arrangements work well.

Mr. David Renton: Did I understand my hon. Friend to say that the millers' grist for the coming season was already fixed from the point of view of home-grown wheat? Is that so, or is there a possibility that the proportion of home-grown wheat going into the grist may be found to be exceptionally large?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The millers have agreed to aim at using 1¼ million tons in the grist. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, last year they took considerably more, about 1¾ million tons, a considerable increase on previous years. The first figure I gave is the minimum the milling trade has felt itself able to take. However, if the wheat is of good quality and if the price is right, I am sure that the millers will, as they have done in the past, endeavour to increase the amount they can take from the home market.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough): Is my hon. Friend aware that it would have the overwhelming support of the House if his right hon. Friend were to inform the would-be overseas suppliers that they must supply corn to this country at not less than our guide prices? If he took that step it would also save the Exchequermany millions of pounds this year.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: We have drawn the attention of our overseas suppliers to our existing arrangements. There is no method whereby the working party's prices can be enforced under the existing arrangements, but we have emphasised the fact that it is in their interests not to send a lot of grain onto this market at prices which are low—I mentioned the French prices earlier—and certainly not in our interests.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOLS COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND EXAMINATIONS

4.53 a.m.

Mr. James Boyden: I apologise for adding yet a further burden upon the House at this extremely late hour and I am grateful to the Minister of Education for courteously being present for this debate. The subject I wish to raise is the proposed schools council for the curriculum and examinations, the title of which rather obscures the importance of the subject.
I raise this matter in an effort to ask the Minister to qualify his intentions on this issue. If the development of this council takes a certain course, the subject could be as important for the future of education as the Robbins Committee or the recommendations of the Crowther Committee. The right hon. Gentleman

was at pains in the discussions on the Burnham. Committee to say that his Ministry was not deliberately seeking to centralise more power in his Ministry. This did not convince the teachers or local authorities in the Burnham dispute.
At that time the proposal for this curriculum study group and curriculum reform was associated in the minds of many people with the same centralisation tendencies. I therefore particularly want to ask the Minister to go to some trouble to explain why people thinking on those lines are wrong.
On the face of it, there is very grave cause for concern. The basis of the English educational system is division of power between local education authorities and the Ministry, and it has been the tradition of most education authorities to leave most curriculum matters to the teachers and the training schools. It would be very detrimental to our educational system if what the right hon. Gentleman has, I think, called the curriculum vacuum or curriculum crisis is used to obscure the real nature of educational crises that are of much more deep-seated significance. It would be hopeless to argue about ways of improving teaching methods and obscure the severe difficulties we face in the shortage of mathematics teachers.
The very shortage of teachers causes a lack of elbow room for experimentation. The very lack of money that so far, over a long period, has hindered educational research, is a responsibility lying very much at the door of the Ministry of Education, and less at the doors of the education authorities and the teachers. Indeed, one of the burdens of our complaint on this side of the House has been that in making educational progress, the Ministry—that is, the Government—is putting too severe a burden on the teachers. In other words, the difficulties of the situation are putting more on the teachers than the Ministry need put.
The lack of university places, for example, is one of the reasons for the extraordinary pressure that often exists in the secondary schools and which makes our young people premature specialists and does a lot of harm to their general education. Equally, the lack of grammar school places causes a similar distortion of teaching in the


primary schools. In this way, many of the subjects that in the national interest it is desirable to encourage—the teaching of Russian, the teaching of oriential studies, the teaching of social studies—are both crowded out of the secondary school syllabus and their very introduction made more difficult because of the shortage of teachers and because local education authorities are unwilling to experiment as a result.
I suggest that one of the ways of encouraging new subjects is not by having a grand council of 60 people but by persuading local education authorities to have on their own staffs teachers in these more rarified subjects who can be seconded to schools and need not be on the full-time staff. The teacher of Russian might well spread his services over three schools and be on the permanent staff of the education authority—similar, of course, to the supply position to cope with teachers away ill, and so on.
I have already said that we on this side think that the very great pressures which could be relieved by the Ministry have, for a variety of reasons not been relieved—lack of public grants, lack of initiative on the part of the Ministry—and nowhere is this more apparent than than in educational research. The local authorities and the teachers have in this been far ahead of the Ministry for a long time. In the current edition of Education, I find:
1962–63 has been a highly successful year, in which there has been an explosion of interest in audio-visual aids.
That was said at the annual conference of the National Committee for Audio-Visual Aids, which is subsidised by the Ministry of Education but for which most of the main inspiration and most of the money comes from the local education authorities and from the teachers as well.
Dr. Harrison, reporting to this conference last week, said:
We are beginning to find new ways of using existing media, and we do not know what new techniques will become available. We must, therefore, keep abreast of all new developments, and assess their value for education. Work on this has begun, in a small way, with the E.F.V.A. Experimental Development Unit, but the whole scale of the operation will need to be expanded considerably to meet the needs of the future. At present, expenditure on development is negligible in comparison with the job which, is to be done.

That kind of theme has been repeated elsewhere. It has been repeated at my own adult education institute—I take some pride in that—but, over the last four or five years, although the Ministry's support has improved, it still lags far behind the support which the local education authorities and the teachers have given in the field of developing the curriculum by experiment and by improving methods. No one can say that the training colleges have been slow to respond to new methods in the training of, particularly, infant and junior teachers.
It comes rather ill from the Ministry of Education to be putting out great pressure, through the curriculum study group, to give the impression, at least, that the man in Whitehall knows what the answer is for the curriculum. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain this away, but it is certainly the feeling abroad in the education world. And it is not doing justice to the people who, since the war anyway, have been pioneering—the local authorities, the teacher training colleges and the more progressive teachers.
I again make the suggestion that one of the ideas which we should take into our education system, as a standard part of it, is that teachers in schools should regularly expect that they will be found grants and continued salary to escalate up the academic scale. I am not very fond of the idea of going up and down the educational system, but that is a "shorthand" expression which helps to explain what I mean. For instance, a teacher who has taken a third-year supplementary course should be afforded facilities later, if he or she wishes, to take a degree in the subject taken in the supplementary course. A teacher of history should be given opportunities to remuster for social science, and so on. I have previously suggested, in connection with the training colleges, that biology lecturers ought to be given opportunities to take higher degrees or honours degrees in chemistry and physics, since that is where the shortage is. So one can go on. Teachers with no degrees at all who have been doing research in education and educational psychology should be given opportunities for full-time study to take research degrees. Very often, universities make arrangements on these lines.
This ought to be a basic provision in our system. If it were, there would be nothing more effective in getting the maximum experimentation and the maximum improvement in the teaching of the various subjects.
The new administrative agency, this great stage army of people, proposed by the Minister has the great danger that it will either act as the rubber stamp of the Minister's secretariat or it will become so imposing that it will be the organiser of the syllabus, the controller of the curriculum, the authoriser of standard textbooks or, at least, the setter of the seal of approval on textbooks, and will even influence the method of teaching in a conventional and orthodox way. It could become the controller of research. The schools council might well become so much the official initiator of change, for instance, change of educational method, and so on, that other bodies and other lines of development are starved of money.
If the council becomes as important as that, the harm done is quite likely to be as serious as it would be if it became a rubber stamp. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he will steer a middle course between these two dangers.
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman's main objective would be the strengthening of existing channels. I have referred to some of them which are in the van at the moment. Certainly, a council of this kind must diminish the rôle of H.M. inspectors. I see no other way of its operating. That, I would say, is a very serious disadvantage for the future. I have always regarded the inspectorate as having always managed to combine progressiveness with tact—tactfully pushing forward progressive ideas, which is one of the most valuable features of our educational system. In the same way the institutes of education should be very much expanded, extramural studies should be extended in the same way that I have suggested full-time teachers should be seconded for higher degrees at universities.
Certainly, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about the council, either the council should do this or some other body should do it, and that is,

make an inquiry into the problem which the council is to be concerned with. These are the sorts of questions the answers to which the council and we ourselves need to know. What are the pressures on the schools? Where do they come from? Who causes them? This may be more capable of being dealt with by administrative reorganisation than by a study of the curriculum and its alteration. How are the innovations in the syllabuses made? How effective are the institutes of education? How effective are the Ministry courses? How widespread are the institutes' journals and how effective are they? There ought to be a general assessment of the subject and of what has been achieved at the moment in educational research.
Certainly the council ought to have an independent secretariat. The right hon. Gentleman exposes himself very much indeed if he more or less compels the council to accept his own curriculum study group as the secretariat. It ought to have power to select its own people and to decide how it wants to go about things, without the suspicion that the Ministry is pushing from behind and guiding the council all the way. The proposed organisation of the council with numerous large committees looks very much as though it must be a rubber stamp. I cannot see how a body of 60 split into committees of 36, with the main council meeting only three times a year, can possibly resist the pressures and advice of its own expert secretariat whether appointed by itself or whether it be the Minister's offering.
I should have thought that one of the ways in which development could be assured now would have been, what is very much in the air, a consortium of local authorities for research into curriculum and educational method and so on. I should have thought that teachers' organisations which over many years now have produced most valuable reports on particular subjects could have helped. I remember a former master who taught me and who was a leading light in the Library Association world many years ago and produced a guide to libraries which had a quite remarkable effect These are ways which need to be strengthened and they are not necessarily inconsistent with the task of this council.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate tonight he will be able to tell us that the council, if he is determined to go ahead with it, will work alongside the existing channels of communication strengthened with money and staff and so on, not dominating them or driving them into the background.
One word in conclusion about some of the details of the council I think the right hon. Gentleman should look at. I would suggest that it is far too large. I would suggest that the attempt to be representative is likely to fail. But having said that, and though I may be a little inconsistent, I would say that, if it is to be representative, I find some rather odd things about it. For example, the Church of England Schools Council and the Catholic Education Council are represented, but there is no representation of the Noncomformists, and I do not know whether Wales is adequately represented.
I do not understand why there should be four vice-chancellors and one representative from a college of advanced technology. There seems to be no representation of teachers of handicapped children. I should have thought that the whole field of handicapped children particularly demanded support and attention by a council of this description. I suppose that representation of the parents might well come from the non-representative part of the council. All these things appear not to have been considered, and the whole way in which the council has been drawn up appears to be haphazard.
The suggestions about subjects seem a little odd. I notice in a long list of fairly orthodox subjects a reference to navigation. It was news to me that the subject of navigation in schools was important and worth a special investigation. As I suggested in relation to representation, theme seems to be no reference to the special subjects of the education of the deaf and the education of the handicapped child, which should demand as much attention as orthodox subjects.
I have raised this matter partly so that the Minister may explain away some of my fears and those of people outside, but the main part of my argument is that if the Minister cannot allay the fears about increasing the centralisation in his Ministry, he will do far more harm to

improvements in the curriculum than he will do good.

5.12 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) has raised a very important subject. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to be relaxed and not dogmatic about the matter, and so I will begin by making a few concessions. The idea of the curriculum study group was that of Lord Eccles. So the right hon. Gentleman can take a more detached view than he might otherwise have been able to take seeing that, having begun a project such as a curriculum study group, there is bound to be development. No one complains about that.
Furthermore, as my hon. Friend said, I fully appreciate the current difficulties. I will mention one because I do not think it ought to be allowed to colour this development overmuch. One knows the problem arising from the failure to resolve the difficulties between the Secondary Schools Examination Council and the universities. That problem has not been resolved, and it is a very difficult one to resolve. But it would be most unfortunate—this is my first criticism of the action which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be taking—to try to solve this very real difficulty, which runs through not only the question of curriculum and examination but the whole field of education, by making more entrenched the Secondary Schools Examination Council. One has to consider education as a whole and not divide it rigidly into higher and schools education.
I have certain hope because, perhaps to the disappointment of the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that the position is that no concrete decisions have been taken. That is why I think it is very opportune that we have this early opportunity of debating this. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not seeking to embarras him at all, but I think it timely that we have this opportunity to have an early discussion at any rate to give notice of some of the doubts that we have. I understand that there is no intention to publish the documents which have been prepared. That is unfortunate. I will not press this because I know that if discussions are being held it is sometimes better to wait for the more formative period before publication.


But I emphasise that this is of such importance that the sooner the views which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind are more widely known the better.
A lot could be said for our present discussions being held in secret session but that would be obnoxious. What is important is that these things should be discussed in open forum, and this particularly affects school curricula. I share some of the apprehensions of my hon. Friend. We should not lightly discount the English traditions of education, but that is the impression I get from some of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman about the difficulties facing us in the school curricula.
It is as though, when discussing the financing of education, we did so in a vacuum and divorced it from the effects it would have on the structure of education. Similarly, we cannot discuss the difficulties of changing curricula without at the same tune thinking about the whole structure of education. The right hon. Gentleman can be easily tempted to over-centralise, but, if he does so in curricula, that will affect the whole system.
I hope that he will proceed cautiously. It is always dangerous to take short cuts. I have been rather disappointed with the unscholarly nature of this document. The fundamental questions are not really posed. This is treated as largely a procedural matter. But we are concerned very much with the traditions and structure of British education.
One of the aspects of this complex we must consider as a whole is research. Whether by design or fortuitous coincidence we have before us two developments. The universities have made proposals to the Minister for Science for the establishment of an education research council. I want to call in aid the document they have issued. It points out, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the complete inadequacy of research in education. This is a cardinal difficulty. Setting up a committee of 58 or 60 well-intentioned people will not overcome it.
I have mentioned the difficulties between the Secondary Schools Examination Council and the universities. It seems that there is a certain lack of

liaison between the right hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend. The right hon. Gentleman makes proposals which must have a very drastic effect on research in education while the universities are making proposals to Lord Hailsham about research in education. What do they mean by research in education? They include, for instance, the nature and measurement of ability, environmental influences on learning, methods of teaching and a study of higher education. They go on repeatedly to make the point that if we are to have research into education, it must be research into education as a whole.
Obviously the two proposals are related. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals obviously fundamentally affect research. The first step, therefore, should be to co-ordinate the two approaches and not have Ministers considering the same problem from entirely different approaches. There are fundamental differences between the right hon. Gentleman's approach and that of the universities. In the right hon. Gentleman's proposals there seems to be a danger of too direct control of research by the Government—I do not want to overstate it. I feel that the curriculum study group will be the motivating force in the committee which the right hon. Gentleman is to set up. It is because of that that I do not like the way in which the case has been presented.
For example, I could quote the reference to the development of text books. I do not think it is unfair to say that the intention is that we would get an official text book developed on official initiative and that then we would manipulate its presentation through the professional bodies. I do not think that it is unfair to say that. That is not the right approach and it is very dangerous, and if there is such a danger, we should be much more frank and open about it.
Let us compare that approach with that of the universities who call in aid the Medical Research Council and say that we have to have a balance of research and devise
conditions of support as to preserve to individual workers that intellectual initiative without which creative work cannot develop. The problem for a research organisation is thus to reconcile the implementation of a balanced and comprehensive research policy


at the national level with the need for intellectual freedom at the level of the individual or the research team.
That is largely overlooked in the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. The universities point out that an educational research council should be independent of the executive departments of the Government and directly responsible, and not advisory, for the expansion of research, responsible for research into problems of primary, secondary and tertiary education and responsible for educational research in the United Kingdom as a whole. They go on to say:
The principle that a central research organisation should be separate from the executive departments of Government was established by the Haldane Report on the Machinery of Government…as early as 1918. It was reaffirmed recently when the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Act of 1956 set up a Research Council as the executive authority for the Council as the executive authority for the Department, thus bringing it into line with the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils.
There is very much a difference in emphasis between the right hon. Gentleman and the universities in the proposals which they are patting forward. It seems that this is a clear distinction which we should always have in mind if we are considering research. The Minister's proposals must necessarily involve research. The foundation is on research. His proposals do not make the clear distinction which hitherto has always been followed in research.
I take the point which my hon. Friend has taken regarding the constitution of the Minister's proposed council. The difference between the two approaches could not be more marked. The universities propose a council of about 12 members, chosen for their distinction and bringing together wide experience in research. The universities say that these people should not be representative. In research—I am dividing it from applied research—this is fundamentally the right approach.
Instead of such an approach, the Minister is setting up what my hon. Friend called a stage army of 58 or 59 people. He knows that such a body cannot be an executive body. If such a body cannot be executive, the motivation will either be the secretariat, which is provided by the Ministry, or, as seems to be suggested,

the chairmen of committees. If the idea is that the chairmen of the particular committees should be those who will largely guide the work that is undertaken, it would be far better to accept the view of the universities and provide for an executive body.
Speaking personally, I think that we exaggerate the representative capacity in such cases. We have too many people who are representative on far too many committees. We use one person to represent an organisation on scores of committees. By the nature of things he loses his representative capacity, because he cannot bring to the body upon which he sits the representative value of the post he holds. Particularly with a committee of as many as 58 or 59 people, we lose two characteristics. We lose the executive character of such a body, because we cannot have an executive body of such numbers; and, having such numbers of people in a representative capacity, we lose the effectiveness of their representative capacity.
I bring these points to the Minister's attention, not dogmatically, but as question marks which arise from the proposals he is making. I am not challenging that he has a difficult problem to face. It is a problem which we should tackle. If we can devise ways and means of aiding curriculum reform, making it more sensitive to changes in society, we should do this and not discourage it.
I ask the Minister to recognise that in doing this, he is taking a step which should reflect the character of education generally and that he ought to tackle it in two stages. He should first look to the research side and recognise that the fundamental problem is that we are not expending sufficient resources upon research, that if we intend to expend greater resources upon research we have to think of a lot of allied problems, including the recruitment of people who can engage in this sort of research.
In proposing his machinery, the Minister does not seem to have given sufficient attention to those factors. When we have tackled this first basic problem of providing for more resources and for better machinery for research, we can proceed to applied research.
The steps which the right hon. Gentleman is taking are open to two objections. One is that this divorce is not made. The


second is that he seems to be taking a short cut. I appreciate why but I do not think that in education a short cut pays. It is much better to be more patient about this and to try to get a method of carrying himself some way towards a solution of this problem by being more sensitive to the character of British education.

5.31 a.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): The House complains from time to time that we discuss almost anything on education debate days except the education service and its working. I am greatly indebted, therefore, to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for enabling us to have a debate on this extremely important subject this morning. I ought to make clear at the outset exactly where we have got to on this subject.
I convened a meeting which met on 19th July to discuss a memorandum which I had widely circulated and which it is clear hon. Members opposite have rightly seen and studied. This memorandum was inspired by the central thought that curriculum development on the scale now required demands the willing and enthusiastic participation of all the partners in our education service. I hope that in my opening remarks I made it perfectly plain to the meeting that I was not asking anyone present to enter into any commitment beyond joining a working party to develop the thinking contained in the memorandum.
At the end of the meeting, after discussion of an extremely high quality, a resolution was put before the meeting and agreed. I cannot remember whether this resolution has appeared in the national Press but I can see no conceivable reason why I should not repeat it in the House. It read:
This representative meeting held in London on 19th July, 1963, (a) notes there is wide support for the proposal to establish co-operative machinery in the fields of the school curriculum and examinations; (b) appoints a working party comprising, under the chairmanship of Sir John Lockwood, one representative of each of the bodies present at the meeting, together with assessors and a secretariat, appointed by the Minister of Education, to consider how effect could best be given to the matters discussed and to make recommendations; (c) agrees to reconvene to consider and reach conclusions on the working party's recommendations.

It was further agreed that the Ministry should invite names of a representative to serve on the working party from all the bodies represented at the meeting together with the Association of Chief Education Officers.
That is all that happened at the meeting. We had a discussion of the memorandum and a unanimous resolution was reached recognising, in other words, that the memorandum dealt with a real problem and appointing a working party to consider how effect could best be given to the matters discussed. I ought to make it perfectly clear therefore that a schools council, as referred to by many people in recent months, has not only not been imposed on anyone but has not been set up—merely a working party to discuss the things in the memorandum.
I do not want to go at length over the arguments set out very well by hon. Members opposite. I want to make two or three points on them and, in doing so, I think that I shall be able to answer some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
It seems clear that what one might call the policy of laissez-faire in curriculum matters dates from a time when the terms of reference for the education service were relatively stable, but the situation is very different today. Today, social, economic and technical change, the expansion of knowledge—a very important point which one should not underrate—in so many fields, and the growing impact of a wide variety of educational traditions, are all combining to force the pace of necessary educational change to an unprecedented extent, and the freedom of the teacher is all the time being affected by outside pressures of one kind or another.
One good example was put to me privately after the meeting of 19th July. A headmaster told me that there is one university in this country where no boy or girl, however able, can hope to get a place to study modern languages unless he or she succeeds in getting an A level in Latin. With the best will in the world the freedom of the teacher so far as those pupils are concerned, if they wish to go to that university, was circumscribed.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not underrate the amount of leadership that is being offered by


schools, or the work that is being done by teachers, local authorities, and many other people in reviewing curricular aims and objectives. I should like to make it quite clear that there is no intention on my part in any way to diminish the rôle of the inspectorate, nor, incidentally, of diminishing the rôle of the education offices of local authorities where a great deal of good work is often done.
I should like to say two things about the inspectorate. First, do let us remember that the curriculum study group and the inspectorate are not two completely separate things. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the study group, although it includes one or two able administrative civil servants, can almost be described as the cutting edge of the inspectorate, which is staffed by many of the ablest of Her Majesty's inspectors.
The other thing is that I have seen a wide representative meeting of the inspectorate and discussed these ideas with them, and the plans as they go forward have the full support of the senior chief inspector and his colleagues. Throughout, I have done my best to ensure that the inspectorate is fully aware of what is proposed and what is being discussed, and the inspectorate realises that there is no intention to diminish its rôle.
I am glad that this point has been mentioned, because I believe that the rôle of the inspectorate is even more important in the education system than many people realise. The inspectors are the liaison officers between the Ministry and the schools, and when one considers the Ministry as a sort of clearing house of ideas, one must remember that a high proportion of these ideas have come from the inspectorate, and still do.
The real point behind the memorandum which served as the basis of the meeting was that a great deal of time, effort, and money, is needed to carry out development work over the whole range of help that teachers need with curriculum and methods; not only textbooks and teachers' guides, but things like equipment and visual aids as well, and this must be team work. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no idea that the proposals we are discussing will ever lead to the central imposition of

textbooks on schools, a development which would be contrary to the traditions of this country.
On the general issue of research I think that we are doing a little more than always appears to be the case. If one looks at the Estimates, one sees that the sum for this year is only about £70,000, but the total value of all the projects being undertaken will, when completed, be between £200,000 and £250,000.
One of the difficulties in this field is not only to isolate the specific problems, but also to find teams really capable of doing full justice to them. Some problems obviously present themselves very easily, like the issue of streaming in schools, on which a particular project is now going forward. I can assure the hon. Member that I am fully aware of the great importance of the research work that is being done.
For the future, the feeling I have about curriculum and methods is that the team work must be carried out in a context that ensures the exchange of ideas between different teams. There is also a real danger that some central bodies—the Ministry, the inspectorate and the Secondary School Examinations Council—could be pushed into extending their proper terms of reference. I do not want the establishment of the curriculum study group to lead in the direction of the centralised control of the curriculum, or in the direction of misdirected central influence upon it.
I repeat what I said earlier, that I always hoped that it would be possible to convene a meeting which would agree upon a further co-operative study of the ideas that were embodied in the memorandum, and that this co-operative study should continue for as long as was necessary to reach agreement on the next step forward. There is no idea on my part of taking a short cut; on the contrary, the presentation of the memorandum was intended as a first step in a lengthy discussion by the working party. No one was being asked to enter into any commitments beyond joining the working party to develop the thinking which the memorandum embodied.
I did, however, say one thing that I would like to repeat, because it is central to the theme of much that has been said this morning. If a schools council were to be set up I would wish to see it as


something more than a purely advisory body. That is to say, it would have complete autonomy in all matters which did not fall within my statutory powers and responsibilities. There is always a difficulty about all these kinds of council. If they get too far from the Central Government they become purely advisory bodies—slightly more than official versions of bodies like P.E.P. On the other hand, if they are too close to the Central Government they give the impression of being merely a rubber stamp for Government decisions, or of being too involved in the atmosphere of a Government Department.
I was keen to work towards a body which would avoid both disadvantages. I made it plain that such a council, in certain respects, would have complete freedom—complete freedom to initiate work on its own account and to make its own arrangements for carrying it out, and to publish the results of its work. There would be no question of the Minister's attempting to prevent some work which the body was doing being published, which is very important.
Broadly—and this answers one question of the hon. Member—it would have complete freedom to use the services of the curriculum study group or not, and furthermore I am quite ready to accept that it should have the job of advising me on the use to be made of the services of the group. I am quite ready to emphasise that I would expect to consult the group and to be advised by it, although we might occasionally differ.
There would be no precise constitutional precedent for a body of this kind, and in one respect it would be different from the N.E.D.C., to which it has been likened, namely, that it would have an independent chairman. It would be closer to being part of the Government machine than N.E.D.C. is, but it would not be so close as to run any danger of giving the impression that it was merely a front organisation to validate ministerial decisions. I hope that the freedoms I have mentioned show quite clearly that there would be no idea of using this as a sort of organisation to validate ministerial policy.
I shall, of course, consider all the points made to me this morning, but I would

rather, at this stage—the working party having been set up—not say very much more, except on the possible size of any such body. The suggestion of the hon. Member is very tempting. There are times in discussing education in Britain when we think a little too much about the various partners to the education service and not quite enough about the question of who are the real experts. This is a point which has been made to me by some correspondents not least by the universities, that we do not recognise this distinction clearly enough.
Clearly, in the ranks of the inspectors there are experts and in the local authority field there are a large number of experts, but it is important that we should consider who is doing the work of education because it is a professional job done because a person is a real expert on some educational matter. At the same time, we have to remember that education is a shared service in this country. The Ministry and local authorities have their responsibilities under the Act and obviously the teachers are the third partner to the education service. Initially, in considering some body to give effect to the functions I have indicated, we must start from the idea of partners to the service joining together on these curricular matters.

Mr. Willey: I wish to put one point which perhaps I did not make clear enough. After all, these are first reactions to the proposals. In what I described as research and applied research there is a real distinction. When one is concerned about research one is concerned about where motivation for permitting the research lies. Under these proposals we felt that these factors were too well seated in the Ministry. That is why I called attention to proposals made outside. When one is concerned about the results of such research one sees that there is a lot in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. One has to consider the character of the education service and to be widely representative because one is trying to get the co-operation and good will of those who will apply the results of the research which is undertaken.

Sir E. Boyle: I think that I can meet the hon. Member completely on this. It would be my hope that this council would contain among its representatives


not only those concerned with the day-to-day work of education in the schools, but also some who could point out a number of lines of research, not only applied research, which were highly important on issues that those of us with day-to-day responsibilities were apt not to consider enough.
To take an analogy, I have always said that it was important for the schools to have a percentage of good honours graduates who could look at them from a wider standpoint. Whatever body is set up, it should contain a number of members who can perhaps challenge the Ministry and challenge our traditional day-to-day approaches to the kind of research which is most needed. I think that would be one very important aspect of the council's work. I recognise the difficulty of the body being too big, although it can be broken down into a certain number of committees. Initially, my approach had to be one showing that the Ministry wished to make a reality of bringing all our partners to the education service in to consider these highly important problems, whose existence I do not think anyone seriously disputes.

Orders of the Day — CONSTITUENCY MATTERS (BRISTOL, WEST)

5.50 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I was very flattered, when the subject of the debate which I wished to initiate appeared on the notice board, to find out how many of my hon. Friends knew who was the Member for Bristol, West and who took a deep personal interest in the subject which I shall raise. I can only imagine that the absence of many of them means that they feel that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I can resolve the problems which I wish to discuss.
The three matters which I wish to raise are not entirely unconnected, and they are all concerned with planning. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his place, and I hope that I shall feel as well disposed towards him when I have heard his reply as I do now. He has many West Country connections and an intimate knowledge of my native city. No one can doubt his industry; indeed, I believe that later today he will have to deal

with the London Government Bill. As an example of his industry, I have brought the result of one very modest Written Question put down to him. The file weighs about 20 lb. and is about 4 in. thick. I hope that he will be able to deal equally effectively with the modest queries which I wish to put to him.
These are local points, but they have a much wider significance, because they deal largely with an old and historic residential area where all the ingenuity of planners is required. Anyone can plan a new housing estate, and frequently does, but it requires something of a genius to solve the intricate problems of an old and heavily built-up area. Such a genius has not yet appeared on the scene in Kingsdown and St. Michaels, an important part of my constituency.
One hopes there to reconcile the needs of the local residents, many of whom are long established—I put their needs first—with the need for the extension of the Bristol Royal Hospital, which is the principal teaching hospital in the west of England, and also the expansion of the University of Bristol. In passing, may I say how delighted I am to see my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton) in his place, because his connection with the Wills family, who very largely created the University of Bristol, is well known. I am pleased to have his interest and support in what I am about to say.
Bristol University has an important medical school, an engineering school and other scientific departments which are largely being reconstructed and are spreading into this part of the constituency. The frontiers of these great institutions, at least until recently, were somewhat ill-defined, and there has been much uncertainty among my constituents as to what exactly will happen to some of them. Notices to quit and other unpleasant documents have appeared through their letter boxes. It is fair to say that the officials of a number of these public bodies have not always been as sympathetic as they might have been in handling people who do not understand legal documents. There was a case the other day in which they told one of my constituents that she had about five days in which to disappear from her house. It was all a mistake, and everybody was sorry about it, and she does not have to go until next


March, but that sort of thing has happened and I hope that it will not happen in future—and I hope that my hon. Friend will do something about it in the Department.
It might be said that the city council must co-ordinate all these activities and that local government is a local responsibility, but I feel that much more could and should be done by my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend to encourage and advise the local authority in dealing with these complex problems. Someone, I think, has to give a new impetus.
There are some plans for residential development, especially on the slopes of Kingsdown down towards where the hospital is being rebuilt. These plans and drawings have gone backwards and forwards between London and Bristol for years. For several years these plans have been in a state of flux. There have been suggestions that they are unsuitable for architectural reasons, that they are not to the right density, and so on. I should like to know where the plans are now, what my hon. Friend thinks about them, and when we shall see something built. There is bound to be a wrangle about what can be done to preserve Kingsdown Parade, Somerset Street, and St. Michael's Hill, all of them containing groups of historic buildings which should be preserved in their entirety. There are many other streets which would obviously have to be rebuilt completely. I should like my hon. Friend to deal with that point.
More important still, perhaps, to the people of the district is the other part of the city, much further up above the streets I have mentioned. There there are vacant sites and derelict and empty properties. Surely some rebuilding could take place there to rehouse the people that might have to be moved out of some of the adjacent properties. It is quite wrong that one should drag people away from their homes and from their districts altogether and put them into a new housing estate when they can be rehoused in a balanced residential development within sight of where they live.
My hon. Friend may say that things are too dense now. This is not a good argument. If he examines the case closely, he will find that there are an enormous number of derelict and vacant

sites. He may say that difficulties occur because of the disturbance of the skyline. I understand that the present plan includes an extraordinarily large and unattractive chimney which has something to do with the boiler house operations of the university and of the hospital. Surely the medical school buildings already cut the skyline in such a way as completely to obscure the Royal Fort building and some sort of tower structures on Kingsdown would not damage the skyline very much more?
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give a new impetus to the solution of this very complex problem. I have deliberately not gone into too much detail because I do not want to prejudice any negotiations and talks which may now be going on. My observations are fair in the light of my experience of this district over more than ten years.
I would ask my hon. Friend to travel with me to another part of West Bristol, away from the largely eighteenth century structures of which I have been speaking to the Victorian part of Clifton and to Christchurch Primary School, a building more than a century old which for the past fifty years has been the subject of agitation. It is quite unsuited to the present needs of education. It is situated in Princess Victoria Street and is to be adjoined by a supermarket and is in a busy one-way shopping street. Only this morning I had a plaintive letter from one of my constituents imploring me to do something about this school, and asking me whether I could provide some sort of decent place for her child to be educated. If action was taken swiftly, it could just affect this child, but I have my doubts. The school has none of the facilities which one would wish to see in a modern primary school and it is only due to the devoted staff that the children there get any education at all. The staff are more important than the building, but it is very difficult for them to carry on at all in the present conditions.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is well aware of all this and is as anxious as I am to see a new school built. He has done very well in Bristol as a whole. He would like to turn his attention to this school at an early date. If a new site was available, I


believe that he would do his best to include the school in the next programme, if he can allot Bristol a primary school replacement. This surely must be on top of the list of priorities produced by the Bristol Education Committee.
The obstacle to all this is the question of the site, which has been a matter for discussion for ten years and more. I can remember as a city councillor having much to do with this. I can remember going to meetings of managers' of this school. One of the sites we were told we could not have because it was too expensive was a large vacant site in Queen's Road, It had been vacant since 1939. It was too expensive, we were told. Yet the university has a fine new union building springing up on it now, all paid for out of public money and not out of its private endowment, so I am told. Yet the school cannot be built there.
A site was decided upon in Royal Park, near Victoria Square, where there is a row of Victorian houses with large gardens. All except one of these houses has been either acquired or will be available to Bristol Corporation by the end of this year. One house remains an obstacle and it appears that nothing can be done until it is acquired, for it is in a strategic position. It was not compulsorily acquired—although it could have been a short time ago—for political considerations. The party in power in the City Council, the Citizen Party, was not anxious to have a compulsory purchase order. The Labour Party used them freely. Now that the Labour Party has taken office again one wonders whether its members will be prepared to act in order to make the building of this school possible.
My hon. Friend may say that this is all nothing to do with him, but he must be able to make some encouraging noises. I am sure that he deplores the fact that this school has been held up from being built for so long because of this one small obstacle. Certainly, the Minister of Education is as keen as anyone to get it built. It is largely a planning and not an education matter because the funds would be available if we had the site.
To return to the eighteenth century part of my constituency, Hotwells and

its waterfront, from which John and Sebastian Cabot left to discover the New World and from which an ancestor of mine, Sir Ferdinando de Gorges, sailed to found the State of Maine. He is called the "Father of American Colonisation," I believe. There, one is almost in the shade of Brunel's suspension Bridge, one of the wonders of the modern world when it was first built. Another wonder of the modern world, the activities of the Ministry of Transport, has overwhelmed all of this and the result has been that many of my constituents have been dumped in homes across the water. Another of my little communities, in which everyone knew everyone else, has been disturbed and the city council gave an undertaking at the time that these people would be housed within a reasonable distance of their original homes. They have not and many of them are a mile and a half from their friends. They are no longer in my constituency, though I believe that they remain my constituents until a new register has been produced. The corporation has let these people down.
I tried to raise another matter at Question Time some time ago, in connection with the design of several new blocks of flats. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has an extensive and, no doubt, experienced advisory service, but it appears that the advice is not properly taken. These flats are so designed that, although they are well heated—indeed, one finds the interiors festooned with pipes and radiators, one must go through three doors to get into the living room; not an easy matter for someone loaded with shopping. To enjoy another amenity one must place a chair on a table and sit on that in order to see out of the window.
A safety factor enters the story here, for these blocks are eight or more storeys high. Surely these constituents of mine are entitled to see out of their windows. I suppose that the advisory service has done its best, but I hope that as a result of my having raised this aspect tonight the matter will receive sufficiently wide publicity for something to be done about it in the future.
To return to the problem of the rebuilding of the Hotwells area, my constituents have been let down and a great opportunity so far lost, because there


are many vacant sites and derelict properties in the Clifton Wood area stretching from Hotwells to Clifton, and nothing has been done to reconstruct anything in that area. I have been there for ten years and more, looking at that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have something to say about it.
These matters are not entirely unrelated, and the planning authority has a difficult problem to solve, but I believe that it could be solved with a little more determination. I have given only a very brief account, at this very late hour—early in the day for some—but I could have given much more detail and could have spoken for very much longer. I am determined that these problems should be solved, and I feel that with a little determination from my hon. Friend we might see some result.
I am determined that the problem shall be solved without undue delay. Money is not the obstacle, nor is the machinery lacking. My hon. Friend could, perhaps, set the machinery working again, and we should then see some results. The dawn is not just breaking at Westminster, it broke a long time ago, and I hope that it will not be too long before it breaks for these of my constituents who have suffered depression for too long.

6.7 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I have to ask leave of the House to speak again—with little hope, I think, that anyone will object.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has made several points that he claims are related. They may be related to each other, but few of them are related to my Department. My hon. Friend knows quite well—he has been in local government—that the school factor is not a matter for me, nor is its planning aspect for me in the first place. If it is a question of the site being too expensive, the decision would have to be made by the local education authority, or, if there were a question of loan sanction, the decision would have to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. If there is one house in the way on the alternative site, that is a matter

for the local authority, in the first place, or for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, in the second place. Just because some compulsory purchase orders are made under the planning Acts, it does not follow that all such orders are the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
As to the question of service of notices, I must say that my hon. Friend gave me only an outline of what he wished to raise and admitted that these were very local matters. Fairly late this afternoon, he put a note on my table—I do not know exactly when; I did not get it until nearly five o'clock—and I could not, at such short notice, get any information from Bristol about these local points. They are points which, with due respect, I cannot be expected to carry in my head, nor would they have been before my Ministry unless we made special inquiries.
However, I read the same local papers as he does, and I understand from Press reports that the complaints made about this notice to quit have been about this hospital building or the university, and the authorities responsible for those places are the people against whom these allegations are being made. In the time available I had no means of checking whether any of the property is owned by the corporation—for whom I might, perhaps, be thought to be remotely responsible—but these buildings are undoubtedly the responsibility of the hospital and university authorities. Here, again, my hon. Friend must realise that this is something for which I can have no responsibility. Even if it were my responsibility, I could not possibly make any useful comment without making further investigations.
The question of giving a new impetus to this area is something that, if, indeed, it is necessary, must start locally. We do not run an advisory service as such in the Department, although, of course, we are always willing to help, through the very highly respected architectural and other advisers who advise my right hon. Friend, when we have planning matters, development plans, and so forth, before us which are matters within our direct responsibility. But where it is a matter for a local planning authority which has in its own


power the right to make a planning decision or a decision on design, we do not force ourselves upon the authority, and, indeed, we could not do so. It would be quite impossible for us to run an architectural advisory service, sifting and considering the features of every building in every city of importance or every town or village of importance. We can only do this sort of thing if the matter comes to us, in which case we, naturally, rely on the advice of these very highly qualified advisers. And, of course, when we are asked for our advice, we do everything we can to help.
I cannot help feeling that my hon. Friend must know—he has been a member of the corporation and must, I am sure, be very closely in touch with his local authority—that I did invite the local authority to come to see me a few weeks ago. Representatives of the authority very kindly came and gave a great deal of their time. We had a useful and productive discussion on the merits of the Kingsdown scheme, and it was very happily agreed that the scheme should be taken back and looked at again in the light of the criticisms which had been made by the Royal Fine Art Commission.
I can only express the view that the officers and the members of the Bristol Corporation of both parties showed themselves in every way anxious to co-operate and to make use of these services and the criticisms of that very eminent body in the duties which they have in this ancient and historic city. For me to join with my hon. Friend in the criticisms which he has been making would be quite wrong, in view of this very co-operative approach which I had from the corporation only a short time ago.
It is not my business, or my Department's business, to decree the size or the height of the windows of individual buildings. Of course—I say this again—if we are asked, we will advise, and, of course, we look at the architectural design. But we cannot go round all the great towns of England and all the great historic villages—there are many in my own constituency, not as big as Bristol, but with a history, nevertheless—and decide the height of the windows, or, as the architects say, the fenestration of the buildings.
I am sure that, if we are to have that determination to improve things for which my hon. Friend asks, it would have been very much easier for me to help if he had written to me beforehand so that I could have been fully briefed and better able to sort out any difficulties there may be. I certainly cannot do so on a purely local matter without having time to get the full facts from the local bodies concerned. I fear that I cannot add anything more helpful than that.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that my criticisms were of a fairly mild nature, and that I shall look forward to his generous help in these problems in the future?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rees.]

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Six o'clock a.m